REMARKS 

O F 

Mr. GEORGE BLISS, 

B E F O R E T H E 

Joint Committees on Education, Taxation, , 
Charities and legislative Powers 

of the Constitutional 
Convention, 

ON T H E 

Amendment Proposed by the National 
League for the Protection of American 

Institutions Prohibiting the Use 
of Public Money for Sectarian 

Institutions, 

J U N E : 2 6 , 1 8 9 4 . 

] :! ' & N E W Y O R K : 

C. G. Burgoyne, Cor. Walker and Centre Sts . 

' 1894. 9 & S 1 



I -

i fm mm 

WRHBChb 



M E P 6 7 fa 

Rev. P. J. PRENDERGAST, D. 
Church of the Epiphany, K.Y. 

REMARKS 

O F 

Mr. GEORGE BUSS, 

B E F O R E T H E 

Joint Committees on Education, Taxation, 
Charities and legislative Powers 

of the Constitutional 
Convention, 

ON T H E 

Amendment Proposed by the National 
League for the Protection of American 

Institutions Prohibiting the Use 
of Public Money for Sectarian 

Institutions, 

JUNE 26, 1894. 

N E W Y O R K : 

C. G. Burgoyne, Cor. Walker and Centre S t s . 

1894. 



For want of time, the extracts from the utterances 

of others were not all read during the delivery of the 

address, but only referred to. To a limited extent 

other remarks here printed were passed over. 



M R . BLISS : I am here, Mr. Chairman and gentle-
men, as a Catholic—a Catholic, not merely because 
I adhere to the faith in which I was brought up whose 
doctrines I have accepted simply because they came 
to me by inheritance, but because I became a Catholic 
after study and thought, for the reason that it 
seemed »to me the true church. I am, therefore, 
here gladly to speak, not in behalf of that church, 
but of some of its charitable organizations. One 
gentleman, I think now present in this hall, said to me 
the other day when it was announced that I was to 
make some remarks here, " Bliss, as a Republican you 
have taken a pretty big load to talk for the Catholic 
Church." I told him that I had no commission to speak, 
for that church, that that church was not on trial before 
these committees or this Convention, but that I was. 
commissioned to speak for certain Catholic institutions 
and charitable societies. I added that, as an active 
Republican, I could say to him that I believed 
that what I should say would meet the approval of 
ninety-nine per cent, at least of the Catholics of the 
State, including the between seventy thousand and 
eighty thousand Republican Catholic voters whom 
our statistics show us to exist in this State (applause).. 
I speak for those institutions, and I do not speak for-
any other body or schools. 

I desire to say that, as Bishop Doane stated, I 
recognize that there are involved in this amendment, 
two distinct questions, that of the schools and that; 
of the institutions, and that the arguments with 
reference to these differ greatly. As it seems 
to me, Mr. King and Mr. Morgan were utterly 
unable to perceive that there was any distinction 
between the questions, or, if they perceived it, chose 



2 

to mix it up with their talk of Church and State, and 
the danger to our institutions and everything of that 
sort. 

I have a few words to say at the risk of being counted 
among those of whom Mr. Coudert repeated the descrip-
tion coming from the lips of Mr. King. Mr. King says: 
" The introduction of sectarian institutions in the matter 
of public support of schools and charities, is a constant, 
growing element of danger." He says the amendment 
is objected to only by three classes, " the egotistic 
ignorant, the cowardly compromising, the time-serving 
politicians " ; " the consensus of intelligent, benevolent 
and patriotic sentiment is in favor of this amendment"; 
that " the thoughtful people without partisanship are 
asking for it." At the risk of being assumed to possess 
all the undesirable qualities which Mr. King enum-
erates, I come to speak against the amendment. 

As to the schools, I do not care what action you take 
in this Convention with reference to an amendment bear-
ing upon the common schools. Mr. Coudert has very 
largely anticipated what I had taken the pains, so that 
I might not be misunderstood, to write down, but I 
will take the liberty of reading it so that there may be 
no mistake about it. I recognize that public opinion 
believes in using funds raised by taxation exclusively 
for the public schools, and that, though those schools, 
as now conducted, do not meet the requirements which 
Catholics deem essential to education, it is useless to 
oppose public opinion as it now exists. By and by— 
probably not within my generation—public opinion, I 
believe, will take a different view. How soon that may 
be, no one of us can tell. I t may be sooner than we 
think. Ten or twelve years ago I was in Salt Lake 
City ; I was devoting some time to the investigation of 
the Mormons; I met in the horse car a gentleman 
who, probably recognizing me as from the East, said, 
" From the East ? " " Yes." " Interested in Mormon-
ism ? " " 1 am looking into the question a little." He 
said: " I hope you appreciate our position here." Said 



7 

I : " What dó you mean? " Said he : " I am an 
Episcopalian. I am," I think he said, " the minister 
of the leading Episcopal Church here, and will you 
believe it, we have to pay taxes to support the Mormon 
schools ; we don't dare to send our children into 
those schools ; and then we have to pay for the sup-
port of our own schools besides." That is to a certain 
extent the condition that the Catholics regard them-
selves in as to the common schools. In Utah that 
system has passed away. How soon it will pass away 
here, we cannot say. 

I desire to emphasize what I have said by reading 
to you an extract from a letter addressed to me by 
one of the highest dignataries in the Catholic Church 
in this State, in which he says : 

I We are not concerned about parochial schools ; 
" these can take care of themselves. When the day 
" comes that the people demand the reintroduction of 
" religious teaching into the public schools, from which 
I in this State it has been absolutely excluded of late 
" years, they will be disposed to discuss how best to 
" bring about the needed change. But the discussion 
" and the change must come from the Protestant de-
" nominations, not from us. No possible compromise 
" could be thought of to-day nor for years to come 
" that we could entertain. So this disturbing element 
" of the parochial and public schools can be eliminated 
" from this question for to-dav, if not for this genera-
" tion." 

So, go on with any form of amendment you think 
necessary to prevent the withdrawal of public moneys 
from the public to parochial schools; you will find no 
present opposition from me or those I represent. You 
will, I think, find practically no opposition from any 
Catholic. 

I desire, however, with reference to the schools to 
call your attention to one or two things—things which 
I believe are not known and appreciated by most 
Protestants. I know from my own experience, and I 
think I had the average means of knowledge and 



4 

the average associations which would give me knowl-
edge, that Protestants are woefully misinformed, woe-
fully ignorant as to the position of Catholics, and I de-
sire to call your attention to facts which I believe are 
not understood. 

There are certain schools in this State, particularly 
in the City of New York, corporate schools, which draw 
money from the school fund. The report of £he Board 
of Education in the city says expressly that in all 
cases of non-public schools receiving public moneys 
the State law prohibiting sectarian instruction and the 
use of sectarian text-books appears to have been com-
plied with. There were in the City of New York in 
1892, sixteen corporate schools drawing public moneys. 
The Board of Education distributed to them $115,-
722.59 of public money. They had an average attend-
ance of 10,846 pupils. Of those sixteen schools 
drawing the public money, two were Catholic schools, 
and they had 862 pupils. And of the the $115,-
722.59 of money they drew $9,196. One was a 
Hebrew school having 311 pupils and drawing $3,318 
of public momey. Two were by title Protestant— 
Protestant Episcopal, having 594 pupils and drawing 
$6,337.75 of public money. Eleven were, as I assert, 
under Protestant management, having 9,079 pupils and 
they received $98,869.39 of public money. So far, 
therefore, as the public schools are concerned, you will 
see that in New York City there is no great sacrifice on 
the part of the Catholics if they should give that up. 
They get $9,000 out of $115,000. I do not mean to 
say that all these other institutions are distinctively 
Protestant. I shall have something to say about that 
directly. But I do mean to say that they are non-
Catholic, they are anti-Catholic ; that several of them 
contain in their by-laws provisions that they shall 
be governed only by Protestants ; and that they are, 
all of them, managed by people who have a horror of a 
Catholic. 



So much for the schools. Now, as to the char-
itable institutions. Mr. Coudert has referred to some 
language used here with reference to them. There 
is much of this rhetoric which is not true. Those 
who use it, however, have been so many years re-
peating their stock phrases that they do not know that 
they are stating what is absolutely untrue or what has 
no application to the case in hand. Mr. King talks of 
" the State lending its assistance to the. ecclesiastical 
organizations to take money out of the public treasury 

for the benefit of ecclesiastical organizations." He says 
" the Church must not receive assistance from the 
public treasury and this amendment is merely carrying 
that into effect." He further says, " the State cannot 
make these appropriations for sectarian purposes 
justly." He talks of the necessity of taking out of 
our politics the question of " the securing of public 
money for sectarian uses, for ecclesiastical uses," and 
exclaims, " Hands out of the public treasury for eccle-
siastical purposes." 

The venerable author of " Nothing to Wear " speaks 
of a " doling out from the public purse of money drawn 
from the people and applied in aid, not of that which 
is public in its charities and under the control of the 
State or its manipulation, but under the control of 
private charities and of sectarian, denominational or 
ecclesiastical bodies." Even level-headed Bishop Doane 
talks of money received " to be used under the direction 
of an ecclesiastical body or for the dissemination of 
religious tenets." Now, all this is merely rhetoric. 
No money is taken from the State Treasury or City 
Treasury in aid of any denominational or ecclesiastical 
body. No money is taken from those treasuries for 
the dissemination of tenets of any religious body. The 
only money that is taken (certainly the only money 
that is taken for Catholic institutions) is taken in re-
turn for services rendered, which services I shall show 
you are worth much more than the amount received. 



6 

Mr. KiDg did a thing which I think did great credit 
to his boldness. He actually referred to what he 
claimed was the fact that the National Platforms of the 
two political parties had committed themselves to some-
thing, and he assumed that you would be so ignorant 
of what has been going on recently in the Senate of the 
United States as to suppose that the pledges of a 
National Platform still amounted to anything (laughter 
and applause). In point of fact the platforms that he 
quoted, except the extract that he made from that of 
the Republicans in 1876, related exclusively to the 
question of schools, which, as I have said, is eliminated 
here. 

One of the speakers read to you a letter from the 
Hon. Charles P. Daly—I think I am justified in calling 
him " venerable," as he was retired from the bench 
some, I think, ten or twelve years ago as being then 
seventy years of age. In that letter he said," I have 
always been in favor of public schools and opposed to 
sectarian appropriations," and yet in the Constitutional 
Convention of 1867 Charles P. Daly used the following 
language: 

" I admit that there is a principle in holding that the 
" funds of the State raised for general purposes shall 
" not be applied to charitable institutions managed by 
" private individuals, and if the Convention is disposed 
" to go to the length of that general principle—if they 
" believe it wise or expedient to do so—then, whatever 
" opinion I may entertain of it as to its policy or util-
" ity, I certainly can have none to its general justice, 
" as it makes no distinction, but confines the funds 
" raised by taxes of the State donated for purposes of 
" charity solely to State institutions. But if the State 
" is to continue, as it has done from the organization of 
" the government, to bestow donations upon other 
" institutions which relieve the State of a trust other-
" wise imposed upon it, either to educate its people or 
" to relieve them when from want or destitution they 
" become a charge upon the community—or, in other 
" words, to fulfill the obligations of humanity toward 
" them—I say, then, there is no justice in excluding 



7 

" from the operations of its bounty any institution 
" which comes under the denomination of religious. 

* * * ." In respect to the other proposition, which 
" creates a distinction in the bestowal of the bounty of 
" the State, I cannot recognize any institution as well 
" organized or carried on in which there is not some-
" thing connected with the worship of Almighty God 
" for the benefit of those who are instructed in, or who 
jg are kept in it for any purpose. And I cannot, there-

fore, but regard a prohibitory provision of this kind 
" as exceedingly unwise in its conception, and as one 
" that is impracticable, or else unjust or arbitrary in 
" its operation." 

I think you will agree with me that that word " al-
ways " in Judge DALY'S letter must have been written 
by a slight oversight, in view of what he said in 1867. 

As to these institutions, you remembfer that Bishop 
Doane stated, that as to them the questions were 
different from those which existed as to the schools, 
because as to the institutions the question was 
whether you would put an end to a system which 
existed, not whether you would introduce a new sys-
tem. I think his language was " a system which had 
long existed and had been deliberately adopted." That 
is one question here as to these institutions. Then, the 
second one is, as I claim—the second question as to 
which I propose to say something, is that it is not a 
question of gratuity or donation. It is simply one of 
allowing a defined sum per capita for certain defined 
services rendered to the wards of the State. The 
money appropriated is certainly, so far as Catholic in-
stitutions are concerned, appropriated for the support 
of those who are in them and whom the State would 
have to support, if not in those institutions, then else-
where. 

That that system exists and has long existed there 
is not any question. Judge Daly, you will notice, says 
it has existed " from the organization of the Govern-
ment." I t dates back forty or fifty years at least, and 
it was introduced not by Catholics ; it was introduced 



8 

by Protestants. You follow it down, I think, twenty 
years or more after it was introduced before you find 
historically a single Catholic institution getting any 
benefit from the system. There was the Society for 
the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, the Female 
Guardian Society, the Children's Aid Society. The 
Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, 
which is the House of Refuge, was incorporated, I think, 
in 1824. These institutions did not all get payments 
as soon as they were incorporated. But the Society 
for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents got them 
as soon as 1847. The Female Guardian Society as 
soon as 1857. The Children's Aid Society in 1858. 
The Nursery and Child's Hospital in 1860. And the first 
Catholic institution you find receiving aid is the Sisters 
of the Good Shepherd in 1860; St. Joseph's Orphan 
Asylum and the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum ap-
pear in 1866; at the same time the Five Points House 
of Industry and St. l/uke's Hospital also appear. 
Those I speak of are appropriations from the city. 

From the State about 1849 there commenced appro-
priations—there had been appropriations prior to that 
time to the House of Refuge and others—but about 
1849 there commenced a system of appropriations to 
the orphan asylums. That was commenced with 
Protestant asylums and continued along until in two or 
three years nearly all the orphan asylums of the State, 
Protestant or Catholic, became interested in the same 
way. But the system was not introduced by or for the 
benefit of Catholics. I t was introduced by the Pro-
testants and subsequently accepted by the Catholics. 

However the system was introduced, the reasons for 
it are obvious. In an economical point of view it helps 
the State by throwing upon private benevolence a por-
tion of the expense which otherwise would fall wholly 
upon the State. What is more important, it gives to 
the wards of the State the advantage of the private care 
—of the personal interest—which cannot be got in an 
institution managed by officers of the State. Bishop 



9 

Doane frankly says : " I do not think—I do not believe— 
that the State can in our alms-houses or poor-houses or 
the houses of the so-called penitents, the penitentiaries, 
or any other institutions that are founded, do the things 
that ought to be done for the poor of this world or the 
wicked." 

A committee of the Constitutional Convention of 
1867 stated the case as follows : 

" They are willing to make provision for the educa-. 
" tion for the deaf and dumb, the blind, the insane and 
" idiotic, and for a class of juvenile delinquents, but 
" none whatever for our hospitals, our orphan asylums, 
" our dispensaries; none for providing medicine for the 
" sick poor, for the homes of the friendless, for 
" established houses of refuge, for eye and ear infirm-
" aries; none for institutions for foundlings, ore of 
" which is established to prevent child murder, which 
" has become the great crime of the age ; none for 
" local prisons and reforms, nor for any charity except 
" those now established by law and under the supreme 
" control of the State. 

" Your committee do not propose general and con-
" stant relief for any or for all these objects, nor, in-
" deed, any relief whatever, except where it can be 
" shown to be the duty of the State to grant it, nor 
" where such aid cannot be defended upon the princi-
" pies of just economy. So long as human lives are 
" worth saving, and the morals of the people are worth 
" preserving, so long as the prevention of crime 
|i: and of other evils are objects worthy of human 
" effort, just so long is the State bound to interpose its 
" power and means in behalf of those charities which, 
" upon proof and trial, shall be found worthy of public 
" aid. And let it not be said that the support of such 
" institutions belongs either to local corporations or 
" alone to citizens. When the State has done all that 
<! it will do, or all that it can or ought to do, the de-
" mands upon counties, towns, villages, cities, and per-
" sons able to give, are quite enough to exhaust the 
" means of all such organizations. 

" Your committee do not see the justice of discrimi-
" nating between one and another class of those who 
" are morally delinquent, nor of those who are afflicted 
" in body, mind or estate. The State is taxed heavily 



10 

I to support the criminals of the State in its three 
" prisons at Sing Sing, Auburn and Clinton. With 
" what reason can it pay so much money to punish 
j crime and refuse anything to prevent crime ? Is it 
" because these institutions, associations and societies 
" are local or personal in their organizations ? If so, 
" we think the answer is not a good one. * * * 

" Again, all well-regulated private and local charities 
... diminish the larger charities and lessen the taxes of 
" the people. Partial aid becomes universal good. To 
" close our hospitals, orphan asylums and dispensaries 
J —to shut the doors of those homes which area refuge 
f for the poor—is to make the State odious in the eyes 
" of those who contribute most largely to its support. 
1 What is needed is revision, supervision and regula-
" tion, not the cold hearts and closed hands of refusal. 
" Eeform and build up, but do not pull down and de-
" stroy. If need be, limit the amount of your appro-
" priations from year to year, but do not declare in the 
" organic latv of your State that from henceforth and 
^ forever no charity shall receive aid from the State ex-
" cept for the limited few in number now entirely con-
" trolled by State authority." 

The report bears the signatures of Erastus Brooks 
Theodore W. Dwight, S. B. Strong, George T. Spencer," 
C. E. Ludington and Frances Silvester. 

We all know Mr. Elbridge T. Gerry, who, with all his 
peculiarities, is an example of a very rich man who is not 
content with drawing his check for benevolent or chari-
table purposes, but who devotes himself to that subject 
in New York, who can be found, before many of us are 
up in the City of New York, at the Tombs or elsewhere, 
looking after poor people, whether delinquents or other-
wise. I have here Mr. Gerry's address, made before 
the conference called by the State Charities Aid Organ-
ization in the year 1893, in which he considers at con-
siderable length the question of these societies and the 
wisdom of supporting them. 

Mr. Gerry says: 

"To my mind the City of New York can well 
" afford to spend, not one million, but, if neces-
" sary, five million, in the support, care and train-



11 

" ing of the destitute, indigent and dependent children 
"of the City of New York. One child neglected, not 
" simply in its common-school education, but in its 
" moral and religious training, may result in the pro-
" duction of a criminal whose misdeeds may cost the 
" City of New York ten times the amount it would cost 
" to educate and train him before conviction. In deal-
" ing with this question of children you cannot under-
" take to deal with them as though it was a simple 
" question of the State paying a certain amount of 
" money in order to rid itself of the education and care 
" of a certain number of voters in its government, or 

where the State is called upon to get rid of what 
" might otherwise be a dangerous class to place them 
" in some place where they might be ground and turned 
" out as Indian meal is turned out, fit for some pur-
" pose." 

After stating the course which is pursued in New 
York with reference to the commitment of children, 
and the investigation which is made as to whether 
they are properly chargeable upon the State, he 
continues : 

"When the Magistrate is prepared to act, the 
"parties are all invited to come into court; the 
" child is brought before him, and .they are examined, 
" first of all, as to what the religion of the parents is, 
" the rule of law being that the religion of the father 
" is preferred to that of the mother in the selection of 
" an institution to care for the child, and, where the 
" parties are of the same religion, of course there is no 
" question. The law then provides that the child be 
" sent to some institution as near as practicable where 
" its directors are of the same religion and faith of the 
" parents of the child, which experience of children has 
" shown to be very wise and proper. First of all, because 
" there is hardly a religious denomination, whether Eo-
" man Catholic, Protestant or Hebrew, that is not taking, 
" in some way, some pains with their young to instill 
" into them at an early age the principles of their par-
" ticular faith. Now, 'if the question of religion is not 
" considered, the hold the directors of the institution 
" have upon the child is absolutely lost. If the 
" child is sent into a different religious institution— 
" that is, one conducted under a different faith— 



12 

experience lias shown that they have to learn all 
" over again. Because, when you come to con-
I sider the nature of a child, the fact that, a child 
" possesses more faith at an early age than later, 
" the faith of a child being useful inversely propor-
" t l ° n a l t o i t s years, you will readily see what an 
tt influence the religious faith has upon a child in 
" training it right in its training. What an important 
8 feature in its training is the giving it something 

definite to believe which it has probably learned from 
" l t s parents it ought to believe, and the child should 
^ be placed in that institution which will enable its 
" subsequent, education to proceed upon that basis, 
" and it ought to result in something more than a 
I vague belief that there is a dutv and that the world 
" was not made by chance." 

After further stating the course pursued and referring 
to different institutions, Mr. Gerry says : 

^ " An institution is the last place for a child who has a 
" home. There is nothing which will compensate for the 
" loss of home under the natural home influences and 
| surroundings—the influence of the family life, of the 
" family circle and family religion ; and where the child 
" * r o m accidental or from any fault of its parents, or 
" from the nature of its surroundings, is deprived of 

this home influence, it is necessary that some place 
^ should be provided for it to prevent its growth in 
1 evil practices and eventually ending in vice, and very 
| often the very best effects have resulted from placing 
| such child in an institution. In the growth of chil-
| dren the first place should be given to religion, and 
^ that training should be in the lines of parental faith ; 
" second, proper education, without which you can hope' 
" for nothing in ensuing work." 

In the Convention of 1867 Mr. George William 
Curtis said : 

" Various statistics have been given to us to show 
" that most of the local aid has been granted to insti-

tutions which are managed by the Roman Catholics. 
^ But, ^unquestionably, sir, if the State, as we have de-

termmed, is to aid charities, it cannot avoid, at least 
" proportionately, helping those institutions which are 



13 

" under the care of the Koman Church. It is impos-
" sible not to recognize the fact that the charitable 
" foundations of the Roman Church are the most com-
" prehensive, the most vigorous and the most efficient 
" known in history. I t is still further true, as the 
" chairman of the committee has told us, that the great 
" majority of those who must be relieved by State 
" charities in certain sections of the State, are members 
" of that church, and will naturally fall to the care of 
" that church. 1 cannot stop to speak of the various 
" forms of the charity of that church, but it is to one of 
" its saints that civilization owes the institution of the 
" sisters of charity, whose benign service is known even 
" in the hospitals of other denominations, and any 
" system which this State should adopt which should 
" strike at the very root of such institutions would nec-
" essarily bring the State to this question, ' Are you 
" willing to do, absolutely and to the utmost, what is 
" now done by the institutions already in existence ? ' 
" I do not believe, sir, that the State is willing to do it. 
" I believe that the experience of this State to be that 
" of Massachusetts. Massachusetts in the year 1863, 
" established a board of charity. In the very first re-
" port which that board made, after looking over the 
" whole ground, they announced that in their judgment 
" the true policy of the State was to give assistance to 
" the private foundations, of whatever sect, that already 
" existed rather than to establish new public institu-
" tions. All that we want is to subordinate all institu-
" tions which are managed by the various sects to the 
" great purposes of charity, and to have a board so con-
" stituted that such institutions shall receive proper 
" assistance." 

In that Convention practically everybody favored 
the institutions, whether Catholic or otherwise. The 
sole question was the creation of a board to supervise 
them. Mr. Curtis was in favor of the creation of that 
board, while Mr. Prosser, of Buffalo, offered an amend-
ment that money should be given only for institutions 
controlled by the State. Judge Daly stated what I 
have read to you, and Mr. Prosser's amendment did 
not, I think, get even sufficient support to be voted 
upon. Finally, the convention threw out entirely the 



14 

whole question, saying that it should be left to the 
Legislature. Mr. Erastus Brooks, Mr. Alvord, Judge 
Gould, of Troy, and others were heard upon that 
subject. 

Mr. Brooks said: 

" The State ought not to support the churches, 
" and it ought not to make donations for purely 
" sectarian purposes. And having answered this 
" question, let me add that it is also unworthy of 
" a State to deny any class of needy people the State's 
" aid because the recipient of its bounty perchance 
" belongs to any one sect or to no sect; and I may 
" also add that it is also unworthy of ' taxpayers,' and 
" all others, to incite the fury of the State against any 
" sect m party on account of its religious faith. 

" I t is no doubt wise to be of those who are 
" Slaves to no sect—who take no private road, 
But look through Nature up to Nature's God." 

" Yet, while discarding State and Church as combi-
" nations, we must remember that there can be no true 
" charity where all religion is excluded—since a pure 
" charity is the very essence of practical Christianity, 
" though no necessary part of what in the State is 
" called ' a religious establishment.' Each member of 
" a family, and every family, are a part of the State, 
" whether rich or poor. The petitioners to this body 
" seem to regard Roman Catholics solely in the light of 
" sectarians, and in this they err, just as the people in 
I England erred when, in the reign of King Charles, 
" they declared that dissent from the Catholic Church 
" was sectarianism. Men may be Roman Catholics 
" and something more. I lay it down as an axiom, sir, 

for which there is the highest authority, that to en-
" force human duties by divine obligation is not 
" sectarian. 

* * * " I admit, sir, again and again, that sectar-
" ianism cannot be, must not be, supported by the 
" State; nor must it, sir, if presented in the form of a 
" true charity, be disowned by the State. Charity. 
" which St. Paul makes the chief good, is scattered all 
" over the Bible. I t beams and shines there like the 
" sun by day, and the moon and stars by night. It 
" is the very essence of the Christian religion, and, 
" therefore, in a civilized country cannot be ex-
R eluded in precept or practice from any public or 



15 

" private institution. Again, sir, if you strike at one 
" mode of religious worship, you strike at all. Tour 
" blows fall everywhere, and prostrate all whom they 
" may reach. You must not suppose that asylums in 
1 New York, Westchester, Rochester or Buffalo can be 
" assailed upon the score of sectarianism, or Romanism, 
" if you please, and Protestant institutions, like the two 
" State houses of refuge, the institutions for the deaf 
" and dumb, the blind, the children's aid societies, Five 
" Points Mission, hospitals for those of mature years 
i and infant dependence escape unscathed. All are so 
ff far Protestant as to have Protestant officers, Protest-
" ant boards of trustees and directors, and a general 
" Protestant management and superintendence. 

" This is true, sir, of all our main institutions, either 
." criminal or for the maintenance of the poor. I have 
" no fault to find with any of them, but be careful 
" where you strike, or, like Sampson, you may bring 
Ü the whole temple at your feet, and destroy all in 
" your zeal to prostrate those you dislike. 

* * * " T o say that the State has nothing to do 
" with religion, makes it atheistical, and that education 
" and charity form no part of its duties, makes it bar-
" barian. To declare, also, that all State duties look 
i only to the protection of individual property, or, 
" what are called the rights of society, makes it but 
" little more than material. The State takes life, limb, 
" time as well as property and money to maintain its 
" power and supremacy. I t makes war, fires towns and 
" ships, incarcerates in dungeons, abridges liberty and 
" punishes whom the law declares worthy of punish-
" ment, and, often, without discrimination of right. 
" Can it do all this and do nothing to minister to the 
" souls and bodies of those who are diseased, infirm, 
" naked and hungry? 

* * * " And, first, of the nice distinction between 
" charity in a State, or legal sense, and in the sense in 
" which it is a private benevolence. I t is said that it 
" is not right to tax the people for charity; but this 
" depends upon contingencies. If the charity is of a 
" public nature, the tax paid for it is right. If partly 
" public and partly private, the tax is right to the ex-
I tent of the aid for public purposes." 

He further said: 

" My, friend from Erie (Mr. Prosser) proposes an 
" amendment to the effect that no money shall 



16 

" be given to any charitable institution unless 
" the charity is supported and controlled entirely 
" by the State. Now, sir, I cannot conceive of 
" any provision more unjust than this. . Those who 
" seek relief may be the maimed, the halt, the blind, 
" the dumb. They may be orphans whose fathers 
" sacrificed their lives in the service of the country. 
" They maybe widows left wholly dependent, and having 
" a special claim upon the State, and yet my friend from 
" Erie (Mr. Prosser) would close the treasury of the 
" State against them unless they were inmates" of some 
" institution wholly supported and governed by the 
" State. Sir, in an enlightened commonwealth like 
| this, I do not believe that this will ever be done by 
" legislative or constitutional enactment, or in any 
" other way. * * * The more attention I give to 
" this subject the more prompt I am to come to the 
" conclusion that it is unwise, unjust and unchristian 
" to ask what is the creed or what the religious faith 
" of any person who is a needy applicant for State 
I relief. The only reason why, in certain parts of this 
" State, the children of Roman Catholics and their 
I parents have received more money, perhaps, than 
" those of other denominations is no doubt the fact 
" that, unfortunately, in the majority of cases they are 
" among the poorer classes, a n d l will not, for one, dis-
" criminate against a sect on account of the poverty of 
i those who embrace it, nor do I intend to inquire, 
" directly or indirectly, what is the faith of any who 
" are really needy and who seek relief." 

Mr. Alvord said I 

" I think he does not understand why certain 
" lines of charity are under the supervision of the 
" State, and that certain others which are entitled 
B to as much, consideration, from tlie nature of 
" the case, cannot be so situated. The blind, the 
| idiotic, the deaf and dumb, and the insane bear a 
" very small proportion in numbers to those who are 
" objects of charity within the limits of this State. 
" They can, even in as large a State as ours, be taken 
" care of in one or two institutions of the State. They 
" are permitted by that fact to be under a certain 
" course of discipline and management, so far as both 
" regards the mind and the body, and which is uniform 
" in its operation. The light of science can be brought 



17 

" to bear upon their cases vastly better than it can 
" when these are few in numbers and scattered all over 
" the State in different localities. But, sir, it is not so 
I with the orphans. The orphans are a numerous body, 
" and it would be an utter impossibity to collect them 
" together in a State institution in consequence of their 
| | numbers ; not because, as I understand it, that they 
" are not as much the objects of truly meritorious charity 
" as these other cases which the gentleman (Mr. Prosser) 
|| has named in his place. And, sir, there are those who 
|| are suddenly stricken down by illness or accident. 
|| They are large in numbers, and they are scattered all 
| over the State, and it is a physical impossibility to 
|| carry them to certain places in the State, which 
" shall be called State institutions, for the purpose of 
| giving them the aid that their necessitous condition 
? requires. Therefore, there is an impossibility, so far 
" as these two classes, and I might name others, being 
I provided for in State institutions, and the only reason 
'' w i l y there are certain State institutions, so called in 

|| the strict sense of the term, in reference to the other 
" objects of charity I have named, is because of the 
" fewness of their number and of the necessity of uni-
| formity in their care and treatment. * * * But I 
| | a m n ° t aware that this cry which has been raised 
;; throughout the State is entitled to any consideration, 
| | because, so far as regards the foundations of these 
|| charities, in the very nature of the case, in almost all 
|| of these institutions of charity throughout our land, 
" so far as regards their administration, they fall into 
|| some sectarian hands. They are the creation of 
|| benevolent people—people who have organized them 
|| because they have an abundance of means—and there 
" are very many instances, both under Protestant and 
I Eomanish auspices, where the institutions have been 
" the emanations of the piety of individuals. Such 
£ persons consider it a part of their religion that they 
|| should perform these acts of charity and kindness to. 
| | their fellow beings, and they must of necessity, under 
|| the circumstances, gather themselves together, ani-
" mated by the religious feeling in order to establish 
|| their work of benevolence. But, sir, I have not in 
|| the whole of my experience as a legislator in this 
" State ever seen any attempt on the part of 
" any religious denomination, merely for the 
|| purpose of proselyting or building up their 
" particular church coming to the Legistature 



18 

" for aid for charitable purposes. I have je t to learn 
" that there has been any charity under the control of 
" a denomination which has attempted to exclude an 
" orphan or a person deceased or infirm because he 
1 happened to differ with the institution in religious 
" belief. They are open to all who are needy, and all 
" who, as objects of benevolence, are entitled to the aid 
" for which the institution was erected. Now, under 
" these circumstances, while the conservators of these 
" institutions may be of a denominational character, 
" their object is take care of the poor and needy, for 
" they conceive that to be a part of their religious duty, 
" and they go. no further toward proselytizing than to 
" extend these necessary benefits to these unfortunate 
" individuals. And, sir, I repeat that I have never 
S heard of any one of these charities coming before the 
" Legislature of this State, and undertaking to get 
" money from the State treasury ostensibly in aid of 
" their charity, but really for the purpose of building 
" up their sect or religious creed. I believe, sir, that 
" we can leave this matter where it has been left in the 
" past~-with the Legislature—and especially with the 
" guards which we have put around it, and that to 
" them eminently" belong the duty of providing for 
" charities under this clause of the Constitution. We 
" have said to them that they may give away moneys 
" in charity. Leave it for the people represented in the 
" Legislature of this State, as from time to time the exi-
" gencies shall demand, to give money in support of these 
" charities and these legalized institutions. Why, sir, 
" it is necessary to take care of the orphan who has 
" been left without father or mother in this world, for 
" the benefit of society in the future, as it is necessary 
" to take care of the deaf and dumb, the blind, and the 
" insane; it is necessary, that they may start right in 
" their course of life, and that they be nurtured and 
" cared for in their infancy, that they may become 
" good citizens as they reach mature years, as it is 
" necessary to take care of any other object of charity 
" within the limits of the State, and it is right and 
1 proper for the great body politic to put their hands 
" into the coffers of the State, from time to time, as 
" may be required, and give forth of the means of the 
" people for the purpose of benefitting directly the 
" people themselves by seeing to it that this great mass 
" of human beings, orphans as they are, shall not 
" come up to be a terror to the people of the State. 



19 

" Believing, sir, that this whole matter can well be left 
" in the hands of the Legislature, and that the people, 
" jealous of their rights, will look carefully and see to 
" it that there shall be no diversion of the funds of the 
" State in a direction which shall be antagonistic to 
" the religious views or ideas of any particular portion 
" of the people of this State, I trust this convention 
I will have made up its mind, before they get through 
" with this matter, that it is best, at least in this re-
" spect, to leave well enough alone." 

I have said, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, that this 
aid given to these private institutions and societies is 
not one of gratuity. Upon that subject I shall neces-
sarily have to give you figures, and I know that 
nothing is so tedious as figures. At the same time I 
shall ask you to bear with me. I say thai it is a case 
in which the State hires societies to board and educate 
those whom it is itself bound to support somewhere, 
and pays to these societies and institutions less by 
nearly half than it could do the same work for in its 
own institutions, and less by a considerable sum than 
it costs those institutions in which that work is done, 
while the State gets them better cared for. . 

In fact, the State gets for $82.11 per year what it would 
cost it in its own institutions $252.88 at least per year, 
without including the expense of buildings, and what it 
costs the Catholic institutions $138.45 per year, thus 
saving the State $170.77 a head per year. 

In every Catholic institution the money paid is a re-
turn for services rendered, and is required to be so bv 
the statute under which the money is given.. It is 
equally true of the Hebrew institutions, but there are 
several Protestant institutions which get monev from 
the City of New York under laws which, so far as the 
laws themselves are concerned, do not require them to 
render a dollar of service, to return a dollar's worth of 
service, or any service for the money they get. You had 
a letter read here from Bishop Potter at the last hear-
ing. Bishop Potter has an institution, the Shepherd's 
Fold of the Episcopal Church, I think, which gets 



20 

$5,000 a year, which nobody can refuse to pay them, 
and under the law they need not have a child or any-
body else in the Fold. I do not know whether in the 
letter Bishop Potter intimated that the continued re-
ceipt of that money by one of these institutions was an 
immoral or an improper thing. I find from the 
Comptroller's Office of New York that they draw it 
with great promptness. If you will refer to 96 New 
York Beports, 137, you will find that this Society at-
tempted to enforce the payment of this five thousand 
dollars a year for two years, when its doors were 
absolutely closed and when it had not an 
inmate. Fortunately it failed. There are other 
institutions — the American Female Guardian 
Society receives $25,000 a year from the city, and it 
has not any obligation, so far as that money is 
concerned, to return a particle of assistance. And 
what is the American Female Guardian Society ? I 
have here its report, its by-laws relative to applicants 
for children ; they receive children and bind them out. 

" Persons applying for children must be regular 
" attendants at a Protestant place of worship and 

recommended by their pastor. The children must 
" live in the family and regularly attend church on the 
" Sabbath and, when not too inconvenient, Sunday-
" school. Only those approved by the board or 
" Executive Committee may select children." 

This is an institution that gets $25,000 a year from 
the city under an obligatory statute, a society as 
thoroughly and severely sectarian as any institution 
can be, but which is not bound to render a dollar 
of service for that $25,000 under the statute. Of 
course they do a good deal, but I say " under the 
statute." 

I have here a list of two or three other societies 
which are in the same way. The Childrens' Aid Soci-
ety gets some of its money without any obligation to 
do a thing. I t gets $70,000 a year under three several 
acts—one is for the use of its lodging-houses, the other 



21 

for its industrial schools, and as to the other there is no 
stipulation. The Childrens' Aid Society, whatever it 
may be, is certainly not a Catholic institution. I have 
no hesitation in saying that it is a Protestant insti-
tution, permeated by Protestant religious influences and 
teaching. I was a personal friend of Mr. Brace, its 
founder, before he founded it. I knew him in Europe, 
when he studied there, and I was with him from 
time to time when he was getting up his system, and 
knew a good deal about it. He was a thorough Con-
necticut Protestant as much as anybody could be, and 
I was as thoroughly a Massachusetts Protestant. And 
I know what the society was, and so it has remained. 

Let me say, before I go any further, that Bishop 
Doane was led to say in his remarks at the last meet-
ing—and I refer to the stenographic report of it, be-
cause it is a serious charge, and I desire to meet it 
fully and squarely—Bishop Doane said : 

" Is there some way by which these people can be 
" attended to without running the risk of giving to any 
" one particular denomination the possibility of gather-
" ing in such large amounts of funds out of the public 
" treasury as to enable that religious body not only to 
" do that particular work for which, apparently, that 
" money was taken, but, as I am confidently told, to 
" have a sufficiently large surplus left behind to carry 
" on a great deal of its own particular distinctive work." 

And I suppose I have a right to refer to the fact that 
a Bishop of one of the Protestant churches has stated 
to a prominent member of this convention substantially 
the same thing ; that is, that the Catholics do not ren-
der quid pro quo for the money they get for the support 
of the children and the others in their institutions, but 
that they get a surplus to expend in carrying on their 
denominational work. 

Now, I desire here—after careful study of all the 
statistics upon the subject, going through all the re-
ports of all the Catholic charities, one hundred in num-
ber, more or less—to say that the story is not true. 



22 

And I will show you, before I get through, by figures, 
that it is not. Of course, those gentlemen believe it to 
be true. I would say, in passing, that I think it very 
likely that there are institutions, both Protestant and 
Catholic, which receive more money than they ought 
to. I mean by that, that it seems to me essential to 
these institutions that a certain considerable portion 
of their support should be derived from private 
benevolence and private charity, and that that 
should be supplemented by these public, returns for 
services rendered. I think very likely that on a careful 
examination there will be found that there are institu-
tions that receive too much. I know that in the laws 
under which all the institutions get their money there 
are very serious defects. But they are defects which 
ought not to lead to the crystallizing into the con-
stitution of a system which will prevent practically the 
distribution of these moneys, but it ought to lead to 
some legislation and possibly to some constitutional 
provision upon the subject. Let me add that the 
Catholic institutions may perhaps appear prima facie 
on their returns, some of them, to come nearer to 
sinning with reference to receiving public moneys and 
not adding their proper proportion of private funds, 
than other institutions. I do not know that they do. 
They may come nearer to that because in the institu-
tions which are managed by Sisters of Charity and 
professed religionists, there is no allowance for salary 
paid to them. There is allowance simply for their 
food, and that of the simplest kind. And consequently 
when you compare the reports of Catholic and Protestant 
charities you find that the annual expenditure for 
salaries and labor is much less in Catholic than in non-
Catholic institutions. 

I believe legislation is defective in another respect. 
I think that in both Protestant and Catholic institu-
tions, and I might say much more numerously in Pro-
testant tha^ Catholic institutions, the law -allows in-
mates to be received for whom aid is to be received 



23 

from the State or city, without the proper supervision 
to ascertain whether those received are proper wards of 
the State. For instance, I copied off last night from 
some of the charters the following : A provision of the 
Infant Asylum charter allows aid to be furnished so 
much per head for all persons " received and main-
tained ;" the Children's Fold for all persons " received 
and supported ;" the Society for the Ruptured and 
Crippled for all persons " received and maintained." 
There is not in the law any provision that those re-
ceived shall be dependent. There is not any provision 
even that they shall be residents of the city or State. 

And there is not anywhere under the law, I think, 
any power which will prevent the payment of city or 
State moneys for people in those and other institutions 
who are able to pay for their own support or who have 
come from a distance for the purpose of getting cared 
for in those institutions. All that ought to remedied 
by legislation beyond all question. There are certain 
institutions—the Lying-in Institutions—where provision 
is given for so much money, so much a week for 
homeless and needy mothers who, at *the request of 
the officers, remain and wet-nurse their own children. 
In some cases the time is limited to a year, but in one 
or two cases there is no limit whatever. They are 
to be paid for as long as they remain, and remain at 
the request of the managers of the institution. I may 
say generally that there is no provision of law in refer-
ence to thè institutions as to the time the inmates 
are to remain, that being limited only by the will of 
the managers. Now, all that is wrong, thoroughly 
wrong, ought not to exist. But it is not, as I submit, 
any reason for putting in the constitution a provision 
such as we have here. There is reason for creating 
some board or power. Let me add that the Catholic 
institutions are exceptional, that they receive a very 
large percentage—outside of the foundlings, they re-
ceive a very large percentage of their inmates by com-
mittals by the courts judicially deciding that these peo-



24 

pie are proper to be supported at the expense of the 
State, and they are committed there. 

Certainly, in nine of the institutions, perhaps more, 
receiving funds from New York City, there is no statu-
tory provision requiring any judicial decision other 
than that of the managers that persons received are 
proper to be received. Three of these nine institutions 
are Catholic institutions. In point of fact most of the 
inmates of these institutions are committed to them by 
the magistrates, but no statutory provision confines 
them to persons so committed. Fourteen institutions, 
perhaps more, are confined to persons committed. 
Twelve of th ese are Catholic, one Hebrew, and one 
Protestant. At least a third of the children for which 
New York City pays are apparently not even com-
mitted to the institutions, and there is no prior official 
investigation that shows the persons are proper to be-
come wards of the State. 

And let me say that in all cases where they are com-
mitted by the courts there is now in New York City a 
most careful system of investigation before they are 
committed. TJtat system is to refer the matter to the 
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children— 
Mr. Gerry's Society. And he investigates it. And he 
investigates it with such thoroughness and care that 
during last year of three thousand seven hundred and 
twenty-three applications made to commit children to 
different institutions one thousand eight hundred and 
ninety-one were reported by that society as improper 
to be committed—improper to have the burden of their 
support thrown on the State. The committals are 
carefully watched. Nothing else is carefully watched. 

Then, again, these different institutions get different 
sums for the same services. Without stopping to go 
into details about that, I assert that the Catholic insti-
tutions are on the whole at a disadvantage ; that, for 
the same services, as, for instance, for lying-in females, 
the Home for Fallen and Friendless Girls, a Protestant 



25 

institution, gets $150 a year, while the House of the 
Good Shepherd for the same thing gets $110 a year. 

I t seems to me, and I mate this suggestion—perhaps 
there may be something in it, the committee may think 
it is practical—that if there is to be anything in the 
nature of a constitutional amendment bearing upon this 
question, it is quite as far as the Convention ought to- go 
to provide something like this—and let me say that in 
making this suggestion I speak solely for myself ; I have 
no commission from any of the organizations or societies 
to speak of it, and I think some of them would not 
agree with me—but, I say, it seems to me and it might 
fairly do to have something like this in the Constitu-
tion : Providing that there shall be no appropriations— 
take in all Dr. King's adjectives you want, sectarian, 
ecclesiastical and all that—there shall be no appropria-
tions to any such institution except (1) in return for 
services rendered ; (2) only for those who would be 
entitled to support from the State, and as long as they 
are entitled to such support ; (3) only for a certain per-
centage of what it would cost to support them in the 
State's own institutions (I am going to show you 
directly what it does cost) ; (4) only for a certain per-
centage of what it costs the institutions to support 
them, so as to require that they shall keep up the 
necessity of private benevolence and shall allow to each 
institution the same sum per capita for the same 
class of service and inmates; (5) that no public 
money shall be used for the compensation or support 
of any person whose time is employed either in 
whole or in part in religious instruction of the inmates. 
And (6) that no public money shall be appropriated 
or paid to any institution the inmates of which are not 
allowed to worship God according to their conscience, 
and that as to children who are too young to make a 
selection the religion of their parents should be 
the controlling one ; and then (7) thai the Legislature 
shall provide a board which shall have authority to see 
that these provisions are enforced, and either modify 



26 

or suspend payments to any institution where they 
have reason to think they are not enforced. There is 
something similar to that—not to that extent, I t h i n k -
in the California Constitution. 

I have not undertaken, in stating these suggestions, 
to go into the precise language that ought to be used.' 
I t seems to me that to the extent I have suggested 
and no further, it is wise to put an amendment 
into the Constitution. 

I will say here, and I think it comes in perhaps 
as well as anywhere else—it meets a question that 
has been put to me here—whether as to those ap-
propriations for institutions, if they were cut off 
by an amendment such as Dr. King urges, whether 
Catholic institutions would remain open and carrying 
on their operations. Now, with reference to that, I 
am justified in saying, and I think I betray no confi-
dence in saying, that the Catholics, to whom that be-
comes an important question, look at it as not one as 
to what they would do or what they would like to do, 
but what they must do. And they are agreed, that, 
if this amendment passes, and these aids are cut off, 
these institutions, some of which you have seen during 
the past week, must practically close or reduce their 
operations to such an extent that they would be 
thoroughly crippled. The Catholics cannot raise the 
money, besides supporting their parochial schools— 
which they consider their first duty ; they cannot raise 
the money to carry on these institutions as they are 
now carried on. If you pass that amendment, you 
must couple it with an immediate provision for taking 
charge of the more than twenty-one thousand people 
that are supported in part by State aid in Catholic 
institutions. I will show you where you will land when 
you undertake to do that. 

I have referred to defects in the law. I simply 
inquire, in passing, whether, in view of the double 
investigation of the Reformatory at Elmira and the 
investigation now going on as to the institutions in 



27 

charge of the officers of the City of New York, it can 
be saicl that there are not wrongs in the public institu-
tions. 

I have here a careful statistical statement as to 
the institutions. This statement has been 
made up from the reports of the State Chanty 
Commission and from the official reports of 
the City of New York and others. I t has been made 
up with a good deal of care. I believe it to be correct. 
And yet it is possible that there may be in it some 
errors. There cannot be in it any considerable num-
ber however, because a gentleman who is . an expert in 
figures originafly prepared it and arrived at the result 
which I am about to read you. I have personally, my-
self, gone through all the calculations, independently 
of him, and without knowing what his results were, and 
I have arrived at substantially the same results. Nat-
urally I think I am a little more correct. At any rate, 
I am' a little more unfavorable to the Catholics than 
he is. . 

There are in the State, so far as I can find, sixty-
three Catholic institutions or societies receiving money 
from city or State for the support of wards of the 
State, and containing at least 21,011 inmates. I say, 
at least, because about one-hundred and fifty inmates 
of one institution have been transferred to another 
where I have assumed they are counted though I may 
be mistaken. There are forty-five institutions receiving 
no aid and containing about 7,000 inmates. The sixty-
three institutions receiving money receive from the 
State $50,369. All of that, except $2,653, is for the 
support of the deaf and dumb. They receive from 
cities and counties $1,675,099.80, making the total 
receipt from the public of $1,725,468.00. They re-
ceive from other sources than the public 
$1183,656. So that out of $2,909,124.80 received by 
these institutions $1,725,460.80 comes from the public. 
What, then, becomes of Bishop Doane's statement 
that there was a surplus received sufficient to 



28 

enable the Catholic church to carry on its denomi-
national work or contribute thereto ? The total ex 
pense divided among the Catholic institutions on 
2 Oilinmates is $138.45 a head a year, as I make it 
The o t ^ - statement to which I refer makes it about 
$141 a year. The amount per capita received from 
State, county and city is $82.12, so that the amount of 
expense borne by Catholics for each one of these State 
wards m the Catholic institutions is $56.33 a year 
There is not any escape from this result. There may 
possibly be fault found or an error of arithmetic of 
some few dollars, but that is all. 

When you come to non-Catholic institutions, one 
hundred thirty-three in number, they receive $1,365,. 
778.20, against $1,675,099.80 to the Catholics. They 
have 14,197 inmates. The amount they receive from 
the public funds is $96.20 per head, against $82 12 re 
ceived by the Catholics. In other words, -they get 
$14 08 more per head from the public for wards of the 
State supported in Protestant institutions than is paid 
for their support in Catholic institutions. 

But, let me be just. There are two or three Pro-
testant or non-Catholic institutions which make no re-
t u r n - n o statement-of the number of their inmates. 
And, therefore, if we could get at how many inmates 
they had, they would be entitled to have thenTadded to 
the number I have given, and, thus, the amount to the 
non-Catholic institutions would be somewhat less per 
head. r 

These figures I have stated to you, take no account 
ot the cost of buildings and their outfit. If we reckon 
four per cent, on the cost of the buildings and outfit 
ol the Catholic institutions and societies, it adds $18 30 
per head, which, added to the $138.45, makes a total 
cost to the Catholics of $156.75 per head; in return for » 
which, they get only $82.12. 

If this amendment is passed, as I have already 
said, and the 21,011 inmates of Catholic institutions 
are transferred to the State, they would, natur-



29 

ally, have to be supported at the cost which the State 
pavs for its other wards in its institutions. In the 
State institutions, if we count only the maintenance, 
the cost of each person is $196.76£ per year ; while 
they pay the Catholics $82.12. If you include all the 
current expenses, except improvements and buildiDgs, 
it is $207.62£ per year a head. And if you include 
all expenses, it is $252.88. If you add four per 
cent, upon the cost of the State buildings and 
outfit, that adds $49.20 per head, and it makes 
the cost of each person in the State institutions 
$302.08 per head. You are paying the Catholics 
$82.12, and this amendment proposes to take 21,011 
wards of the State into the State institutions at the in-
creased expense of the difference between $82.12 and 
$302.08, or at $219.96 a head, and it proposes also to 
take the 14,197 wards of the State that are in Protes-
tant institutions, or at least to expose itself to having 
to take them in on similar conditions. Now, what is 
the result of all that ? I t comes to this : 

If you confine yourself merely to the cost of mainte-
nance in the State institutions of those now in Catholic 
institutions, you increase the annual cost to the State 
by $3,587,792.88. If you include the interest upon 
the cost of the necessary buildings, you increase the 
cost to the State for those now in Catholic institutions 
by $4,621,534.08. If you add the increased cost for 
the 14,197 inmates now in Protestant institutions, you 
make the aggregate annual increased cost to the State 
$6,845,893.24, without reckoning any interest on the 
cost of new buildings for them. If you include such 
interest on the buildings necessary for those now in 
Protestant institutions, you bring the total aggregate 
annual increased expense to the State, caused by this 
amendment, up to $7,544,385.64. Of course the State 
would have to borrow the ten or twenty million dollars, 
more or less, which the buildings would cost. 

I commend that to the late chairman of the Com-
mittee on Taxation in the Senate as a problem for him 



30 

to solve. How is he going to do it ? He has got at 
almost every source of possible revenue in this State. 

In this connection let me refer, gentlemen, to a state-
ment distributed at the last hearing by the Secretary 
of the National League, which urges the passage of 
this amendment. Great reliance was obviously placed 
upon it. Mr. Butler referred to it as the "cold, hard 
figures which Mr. King has read," as showing that the 
Catholics get an undue share of the public money; 
while Bishop Doane announced that it is I one that can 
be relied on." I submit to you that it is one that can-
not be rehed on, and that I can satisfy you in less than 
five minutes that it is false or deceptive—whether 
intentionally false or deceptive I leave you to say. 

History, gentlemen, repeats itself. In the Consti-
tutional Convention of 1867, there was a circular dis-
tributed in which it was stated that the Legislature of 
1866 had appropriated $129,000.25 for sectarian pur-
poses, of which amount the Catholics obtained not less 
$124,171. Mr. Ellis H. Roberta, the editor of the 
" Utica Herald," denounced it as false. Mr 
Cassidy, the editor of the "Albany Argus," said : 
" I do not hesitate to say that it is false from 
beginning to end ; it has all the characteristics 
of a forgery; no one disputes it." " I have the 
memorial to which my friend has alluded," said 
Mr. Erastus Brooks ; g and though it may not go to 
the extent of falsehood mentioned by the gentleman 
from Albany, that is an entire falsehood which comes 
under one of those offenses laid down by Paley where 
he says that a man may state ninetv-nine facts and 
every one of them be a falsehood, because when the 
one hundredth fact is given it overthrows all that has 
been stated before; this is precisely one of those 
cases. It has just enough truth in it to make a pre-
tense, but in point of fact and result, it is no trne state-
ment." And Mr. Alvord, an honored member of your 
Convention, and who was in that Convention, said he 



31 

thought " the communication was from beginning to end 
a falsehood." That was in the Convention of 1867. 

Let us see what we have here in this Convention. 
There is claimed to be shown by this circular a state-
ment of moneys appropriated for sectarian purposes in 
certain cities' of this State in 1893. I have had no 
opportunity to verify it except as to New York and 
Brooklyn. I am told that it is absolutely false as to 
Rochester, but I would not undertake so to say. I 
will show you by official documents certified by the 
officers of the cities of New York and Brooklyn made 
since that statement was made, that it is infamously 
false or deceptive. The circular says that from the 
general fund the Roman Catholic institutions received 
$604,000, Protestant sectarian institutions $38,000 
and Hebrews $148,000. Now, I have here the 
certified statement of Hon. Ashbel P. Fitch, Comp-
troller of the City of New York, transmitted to me 
under date of June 13th, 1894—and you will per-
ceive, gentlemen, that this'says "appropriations "—the 
Comptroller's report for the year 1893, which would 
have shown the appropriations they made for that 
year, is not printed and not accessible ; and though I 
had the estimates made in the fall of 1892 for the 
appropriations of 1893, I did not mean that there 
should be any escape from this thing. The deceptive 
circular says " appropriations for 1893," and I asked the 
Comptroller for a statement of the appropriations 
actually made for that year, and here I have that state-
ment, so made by the Comptroller, and I read to you 
what it shows : That the appropriations made in 1893, 
which are stated in this list as $604,000 to Catholics, 
were to them really $603,814.40 ; and the appropriations 
to other Christian institutions, of which I will read to 
you the list, were $502,729.50.. These other Christian 
institutions are all Protestant; or, in the language of 
Erastus Brooks, " all are so far Protestant as to have 
Protestant officers, Protestant boards of trustees and 
directors, and a general Protestant management and 



32 

t T n n n t e n d e ü C e - " T 1 Ü S C Í r C u l a r l l e r e s a J s that onlv 
l d a ' U ( J 0 w a s appropriated in New York City for the 
general fund for the Protestant sectarian institutions. 
Iñe Comptroller says $502,709.80. 

Twenty-five thousand dollars went to the American 
Female Guardian Society, of which I read to 
you just now the by-laws, showing that they could not 
bind out a child except to a Protestant. Eighteen 
thousand dollars went to the Children's Fold—the 
Children's Fold of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
four hundred dollars went to the Magdalen Benevolent 
Society. One hundred and twenty-two thousand five 
hundred dollars to the House of Refuge, which would 

not permit a priest to do his duty to an inmate there 
until the Legislature interfered, and after a long fight 
directed it by the so-called Freedom of Worship Bill 
Ninety-six thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine 
dollars and fifty cents went to the Infant Asylum 
Twenty-six thousand two hundred and fifty dollars 
to the Society for the Ruptured and Crippled. Four 
thousand five hundred dollars to the Infirmary for 
Women. Ninety thousand dollars to the Nursery and 
and Child's Hospital, which always has Protestant 
service and is attended in turn by three Protestant 
ministers. To the Protestant Episcopal House of 
Mercy, eleven thousand dollars. The Shepherd's Fold 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, five thousand dol-
lars The Five Points House of Industry, four thous-
and dollars. The Babies' Hospital, three thousand five 
hundred dollars. The Institution for Deaf Mutes 
twenty-five thousand eight hundred dollars. That is 
five hundred and two thousand seven hundred and 
twenty-nine dollars. As to the one hundred and forty-
eight thousand dollars stated as given to the Hebrew 
institutions it is correctly given. 

I t comes to this, that while there was appropriated 
to Catholic institutions $603,814.40, which is within a 
few dollars of what is stated in the circular, there was 
appropriated to Hebrew institutions $148,000, and then 



33 

tliey say there was only $38,000 to Protestants. The 
circular, you will see, utterly ignores nearly half of the 
total amount appropriated. It says $604,000 to 
Catholics, $38,000 to Protestants and $148,000 to 
Hebrews, and does not even refer to the fact that this 
statement leaves at least $455,177.13 of the total appro-
priations wholly unaccounted for. Five hundred and 
two thousand seven hundred and twenty-nine dollars 
and fifty cents, I say, was appropriated to the institu-
tions I have enumerated which I claim are Protestant. 

Is not that, to say the least, deceptive ? Why did 
they suppress the fact that the total j appropriations 
were $1,305,177.13. Does it not tend to show that 
those who got up the circular desired to conceal from 
you the fact that, out of the $502,000 in round 
numbers appropriated to institutions which were nei-
ther Catholic nor Hebrew, they, the getters up of the 
circular, had chosen to pick out certain institutions 
and say those are the only Protestant sectarian ones, 
and so lead you to think that only that amount went to 
Protestant institutions ? If they had stated what the 
total appropriations were did they not know that people 
would say, "Well, what became of the large sum you 
don't specify," and thus detect them ? 

I have tried to find out how it might be possible to 
reconcile this circular with any theory of the facts— 
what institutions they possibly could have taken in 
here to make up the $38,000 which they allow—and I! 
had to give it up. Because there is $25,000 to the 
American Female Guardian Society, whose by-laws I 
have read to you ; there is $18,000 to the Children's. 
Fold of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; there is, 
$11,000 to the Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy v 
and there is $5,000 to the Shepherd's Fold of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church. So that, if we take only 
these and leave the rest out, we have $64,000. 

Now, I do not know how that sort of thing is to be 
explained consistently with fairness or frankness. 



34 

M R . LAUTERBACH : We should thank you to leave 
these lists of expenditures with us. 

M R . BLISS : Yes, sir; I will see that the , committee 
gets these figures. 

The only thing that occurs to me as the way the 
getters up of the circular proceeded is as I have sug-
gestedH-that they did not count a lot of these institu-
tions as Protestant sectarian. If that is the fact, I 
suggest that this throws a lurid light upon what these 
gentlemen mean when they put " sectarian " into their 
constitutional amendment. They mean to allow all 
these institutions, or to claim that all these institutions 
which they have omitted fi*om this table, are not sec-
tarian, while all the Catholic and Hebrew institutions 
are. And I may say to you, gentlemen, that earnest 
friends of this amendment in conversation have had no 
hesitation in saying that the intended result of the 
amendment was that they would exclude Catholic in-
stitutions because Catholics were clearly a sect, and 
that these several Protestant institutions were not to 
be excluded because Protestanism was not a sect. 

But this deceitful circular goes further and states that 
from the Excise Fund the Roman Catholics receive 
$609,000, the Protestants $37,000 and the Hebrews 
$37,000. They concealed from you—and I cannot think 
but they deliberately did it—that under the rule of dis-
tribution the excise moneys are distributed per capita 
solely to persons committed by the courts under the 
careful system stated in Mr. Gerry's remarks already 
quoted. The courts have committed these persons to 
the several institutions. The Comptroller told me that 
when the returns came in from the institutions that they 
had supported A, B, C, D, E and F, he went to the cer-
tified returns from the courts to find out that they had 
all been committed, he went also to see that they had 
not been ordered discharged. And then they were paid 
for at an equal sum per capita. Ought not the getters 
up of this circular to have stated this fact to you, to 
have called your attention not only to this fact that the 



moneys were received at equal rates and only for those 
committed, but that the committals were made to insti-
tutions managed by those- of the same faith as the 
inmates ? 

Nor is the statement as to the excise moneys any less 
misleading than that as to the general fund. 

The circular claims $609,000 as appropriated from 
excise moneys to Catholic societies, $37,000 to Protest-
ant societies and $37,000 to Hebrew societies. The true 
amount to Catholic institutions is $609,748.32, to 
Protestant institutions $71,078.66, and $38,275 to 
Hebrew institutions. The institutions I have described 
as Protestant all come under Erastus Brooks' descrip-
tion as " so far Protestant as to have Protestant officers, 
Protestant Boards of Trustees and Protestant directors, 
and a general Protestant management and superintend-
ence." Among them appears our old friend The Female 
Home Guardian Society as getting $17,364.87. The 
other institutions are the Colored Orphan Asylum, 
$16,183.56 ; the Home of Industry, $29,931.22, and the 
Home for Fallen and Friendless Girls, $7,599. Which 
of these institutions are counted as Protestant by the 
getters up of the circular in making up its $37,000 I 
cannot say. The Female Home Guardian Society 
whose by-laws I have read you as confining itself to 
Protestant families recommended by Protestant min-
isters must be one, but as to which society is entitled 
to the credit of being the second I am unable to say. 

I put together in parallel columns the statements of 
the circular and the statements of the official reports, 
classing as Protestant all institutions and societies 
under Protestant management. 

From General Fund. 

Catholic. Protestant. Hebrew. 
By the circular..$604,000 00 $38,000 00 $148,000 00 
By official report 603,814 40 502,729 50 148,000 00 



36 

From Excise Fund. 

Catholic. 
By the circular..$609,000 00 
By official report 609,748 32 

Protestant. Hebrew. 
$37,000 00 $37,000 00 

71,078 60 38,275 00 

Total 

Catholic. Protestant. Hebrew. 
By the circular.$1,213,000 00 $75,000 00 $185,000 00 
By official report 1,213,562 73 573,808 16 186,275 00 

I have also here the report from the officers in 
Brooklyn as to the items embraced in the circular. 

The circular says that in that city the Catholic insti-
tutions received in 1893, under city charter and special 
laws, $270,500 ; from Excise Fund, $40,500, and by the 
Board of Education, $22,740, or a total of $333,740 ; 
while it says the Protestant institutions got, under city 
charter and special laws, $29,700 ; from Excise Eund, 
$12,500; by the Board of Education, $8,070; total, 
$50,270 ; while the Hebrews got $2,100 under city 
charter and special laws, $500 from Excise Eund, and 
$950 by the Board of Education; total, $3,550. The 
statements I hold in my hand show the following to be 
the real facts : 

To get at the correct figures from Brooklyn, it is ne-
cessary to combine the returns from the Comptroller 
and those from the Treasurer of that city and then to 
add the returns from the Treasurer of Kings County. 
The result is that the Comptroller's returns show, paid 
to Catholics charities $80,236.04; to non-Catholic 
charities, $118,533.56, making a total from his office of 
$198,769.60. The City Treasurer pays to the cor-
porate schools connected with Catholic charities 
$19,193.47, and to those connected with non-Catholic 
charities $17,663.56, or a total of $36,857.03. The 
Treasurer of Kings County pays to Catholic charities 
$191,197.33 and to non-Catholic charities $166,504.24, 
making a total from his office of $357,701.57. The 



37 

grand total from all these three offices is $593,328.70, 
of which $290,626.84 is to Catholic charities and 
$302,701.36 to non-Catholic charities. Of the sum to 
non-Catholic charities, if we take the circular as correct 
in that respect, a total of $3,550 goes to the Hebrew 
charities, leaving a total to Protestant charities of $299,-
151.36. How does this look as compared with the de-
ceptive statement that there were in all $333,740 paid 
to Catholic charities, while the real sum paid was 
$290,626.81, and $50,270 to Protestant charities, while 
the real sum was $299,151.36? 

I t is to be noted that the Comptroller's disburse-
ments are: First, to dispensaries and hospitals—ex-
clusive of the excise moneys—$81,500; and, second, the 
excise moneys to the charitable institutions, which are 
based upon the number of inmates and the work done. 
The City Treasurer distributes on behalf of the Board 
of Education to the corporate schools in proportion to 
the number of children in them respectively. The 
Kings County Treasurer pays for those committed the 
same sum per capita to all institutions. He also pays 
.$35,177.81 to State institutions, of which St. Joseph's 
Hospital for Deaf and Dumb, the only Catholic one, 
receives $15,926.11. 

.1 presume that the way in which the statements of 
the circular as to .Brooklyn will be attempted to be 
reconciled with the facts will be by the claim that only 
a few of the institutions are Protestant sectarian. The 
number of institutions is large, and I cannot undertake 
to enumerate them here. I can only say that the desig-
nation of non-Catholic institutions as Protestant is made 
on the same principle as the designation in New York. 
My list is at the service of any one who desires to 
verify or attack it. I have no personal knowledge as 
to the Brooklyn institutions, but have taken every 
possible means to be correct; under any circumstances 
-the circular is as to Brooklyn as thoroughly deceptive 
as it is as to New York. 



38 

All I desire to add, as to this circular, is to ask this 
committee whether the language used by Mr. Alvord 
and Mr. Cassidy in the Convention of 1867, with refer-
ence to the circular distributed there, does not prop-
erly apply to the circular distributed here, and whether 
the only reason why the language of Erastus Brooks 
does not also properly apply to it is not because it has 
not even I just enough of truth in it to make a 
pretense ? " 

I have incidentally, in speaking of the abuses under 
existing laws, shown that, so far as there is any 
violation of the principle that no public moneys 
should be paid for the support in institutions of any 
one not entitled to support from the city or State some-
where, such violation exists to no great extent, if 
at all, in any of the Catholic institutions. In Catholic 
institutions to which inmates can be admitted without 
being committed, there were on January 1st, 1894, 
other than the Foundlings', only two hundred and nine-
teen inmates partly paid for by public funds, and of these 
by far the larger part were in fact committed by the 
magistrates, though they were not required to be so. 
All the New York City Catholic institutions receive 
money only in consideration of the rendering of 
specific services. Only once, I think, has a 
Catholic institution in New York city received 
money except as payment stipulated to be for services 
rendered. The Protectory got $50,000 in 1866 condi-
tioned on a like sum being raised by private subscrip-
tions. On the other hand, ih e Juvenile Asylum had a 
like sum on like terms in 1852. Between 1867 and 
1872, the Protestant House of Mercy received $50,000. 

From absolute appropriations without the obligation 
to return anything for it, no Catholic institution gets 
anything. Of Protestant institutions, the Shepherd's 
Fold of the Protestant Episcopal Church has had 
by statute $5,000 a year since 1871. Not hav-
ing had the pleasure of seeing or hearing the 
letter which Bishop Potter sent to this Com-



39 

mittee, I cannot say whether he is going to refuse to 
sanction the receipt of this sum in future. I t has 
hitherto been drawn with great fidelity, and, I think, 
its payment has been compelled by the Court. The 
American Female Guardian Society has had $25,000 a 
year since 1872. The Children's Aid Society gets 
$10,000 a year, by virtue of an Act of 1865; $30,000 more 
by virtue of an Act of 1867, and $30,000 a year more, 
by virtue of an Act of 1868, in all $70,000 a year. 

In one of the pamphlets to be handed you is a state-
ment so striking that I insert it here. 

To show the economy of public aid to religious char-
ities we have a striking illustration in the case of the 
Catholic Protectory. That institution does for children 
of Catholic parents what the House of Refuge and the 
Juvenile Asylum do for Protestants. Some of you 
have visited both these institutions very recently. All 
three receive per capita allowances from the public 
funds. The House of Refuge is supported wholly by 
the city and State. The House of Refuge, moreover, 
received its land from the city, and very nearly the en-
tire expense of its buildings was paid by the taxpayers. 
According to its fiftieth annual report, issued in 1875, 
which is the latest statement to which the original 
writer had access, the cost of its real estate and build-
ings up to that date was $745,740, and the total 
amount received from private subscriptions and dona-
tions during its whole history was only $38,702. 

Now look at the record of the Catholic Protectory. 
That establishment contained on September 30, 1892, 
2,305 children, the House of Refuge having 541. Up 
to 1875 (the same date we have taken for the review of 
the expenditures of the House of Refuge) the outlay 
on real estate and buildings amounted to $933,968, of 
which the authorities had contributed $193,502 in 
money and nothing at all in land, leaving a balance to 
that date of about $740,000 supplied by the liberality 
of Catholics. Since that time the buildings have grown 
and the land occupied has increased enormously, almost 
entirely at the expense of the institution. Nor is this 
all. During the first three years of its existence the 
Protectory received no allowances from the public 
treasury. It obtained at last from the Legislature a 
per capita grant of $50—less than half the actual cost 



40 

of maintenance. I t now receives $110 for each child • 
the Juvenile Asylum receiving the same amount. The 
defacit of the Protectory on current expenses up to 
1875 reached the sum of $250,000, and for many years 
it was regularly from $40,000 to $50,000 a year. The 
average cost of maintenance of each inmate for the 
year ending September 30, 1893, was $115.28. The 
average expense per capita for each inmate of the 
House of Refuge for the same period was $210, all of 
which was paid by the State. 

The House of Refuge claims not to be a State 
institution. Though wholly supported by the State it 
is governed by a body of self-perpetuating managers, 
all but one Protestant. A report made to this Con-
vention by the Comptroller of the State shows that the 
State paid to the House of Refuge for maintenance in 
1891, $103,000 ; in 1892, $102,499.96 ; in 1893 $111 -
274.04. 

I come now to ask you to tell me, if you can, 
what this proposed amendment means V It was 
introduced to the committee as the perfection of wis-
dom, drawn by five eminent lawyers of New York, and 
as having been forced upon I do not know how many 
State Legislatures or conventions. But Dr. King was 
forced to say before the close of the hearing, " I believe 
there will have to be some change in the phraseology." 
And Mr. Howland was forced to say, " I can see that 
some of the phraseology in that section must be 
changed. It has been brought to my atten-
tion by the questions put here this after-
noon." Mr. McDonough, Mr. Roche and others 
put questions. Dr. King referred then to the law 
Committee. The representative of the Law Committee 
could not answer them and they remained unanswered 
practically. Further on Mr. Butler was a good deal 
mixed. He finally concluded that the whole matter 
was a question of " control," but you could not get him 
to define when an institution was under ecclesiastical 
or sectarian control. A constitutional provision should 
at least be clear as to what those who favor it and sup-



41 

port it suppose it to mean. I t should be made as clear 
as possible. Even Mr. Morgan says " there ought to be 
no mistake as to the meaning." 

Now, again, I ask the committee what does the 
amendment mean ? Let us see for a moment if we can 
get any light as to what this amendment is intended to 
mean. I do not think Dr. King knows, for Dr. King 
in Document 21 issued by his organization thus de-
scribes i t : 

" The amendment does not discriminate in reference 
" to the amounts of money taken, but asserts the vital 
" principle that only 'public institutions shall be sup-
" ported by public money and indiscriminately cuts off 
" all other claimants." 

Can you read that in that amendment ? Can any-
body but Dr. King find it in that amendment ? This 
is document 21, dated April, 1894. The language of 
tbe proposed amendment is as follows: 

" No law shall be passed respecting (1) the establish-
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, 
(2), nor shall the State or any county, city, town, village 
or other civil division, use its property or credit, or any 
money raised by taxation, or otherwise, or authorize 
either to be used, for the purpose of founding, main-
taining or aiding, by appropriation, payment for 
services, expenses, or in any other manner, any church, 
religious denomination or religious society, (3), or any 
institution, society or undertaking, which is wholly or 
in part, under sectarian or ecclesiastical control." 

It says in effect you cannot found, maintain or 
aid by appropriation, by payment for services, ex-
penses or otherwise, any church, religious denomina-
tion or religious society, or any institution, society or 
undertaking, "which is wholly or in part under sectarian 
or ecclesiastical control." Now, taking the last clause 
first, what is " wholly or in part under ecclesiastical 
control ? " Is it so if among its trustees or directors it 
has one minister of the gospel ? Or must there be a 
majority of ministers to make it under ecclesiastical con-



42 

trol ? If ifc means" a majority," what is meant by the 
words " in part ? " Is it under ecclesiastical con-
trol if its trustees, directors or managers are all 
laymen but the superintendent or executive 
officer is a clergyman ? Is it under ecclesiastical 
control in whole or in part if the trustees, 
directors or managers are all laymen, but the chaplain 
is a priest ? Is it under ecclesiastical control if the 
Sisters of Charity have charge of it and are the people 
who come directly in connection with the patients and 
the wards, though the trustees, directors or managers 
are laymen ? Is it under ecclesiastical control if its 
managers and so forth are laymen ? Who can tell ? 
And are you, gentlemen, going to put into the Consti-
tution a clause which you yourselves do not think you 
can tell what it means to-day ? If there is anything in 
God's world that should be clear it is a Constitutional 
provision. I t should correctly express what the people 
who enact it intended to express, and they should be 
able to define that intention. I t will be bad enough any 
way. The Court of Appeals will have to benefit us 
lawyers by construing it. But I submit that it is your 
duty, as members of this Convention, if you are going 
to put in any Constitutional amendment, to put it 
in such form that you at least can say what it means. 
Can you so saj' as to this thing ? 

Again, what is a " sectarian 1 institution ? If the 
managers are all Catholics, of course it is sectarian. 
Suppose its managers are all Protestants, but of half a 
dozen of the sixty or more different sects, is it sectar-
ian ? Now, we won't make any concealment. The 
people who got up this amendment intended to say, 
and some of them do say in private conversation, that 
an institution managed by Methodists solely is sectar-
ian, but an institution managed by Methodists and 
Baptists is not sectarian. They say Catholics are a 
sect; Protestants are not a sect, but an aggregation of 
sects, and so long as they get into their management 
representatives of one or more Protestant sects it is not 



43 

sectarian. I charge that that is intended by the get-
ters-tip of this amendment, and then I leave it to you 
whether you are going to be the cat's-paws to do such 
a foolish thing as that. How if the managers are part 
Methodist and part Baptist? How if they are part Uni-
tarians and part Trinitarians ? Is it sectarian ? All 
these questions have got to be answered some time or 
other if you are to put this amendment into the 
Constitution. 

Moreover, suppose a half dozen Protestants are put 
into the management of the Catholic Protectory, will 
it then cease to be sectarian, and if not, why not? 
What is to prevent the Catholics from introducing into 
the management of their institutions a few broad-
minded Protestants or Hebrews who think that charity 
is not sectarian, and what then becomes of your amend-
ment ? 

We can perhaps get a little light on this subject of 
the intended meaning of this amendment from what 
the men who present the amendment here have de-
clared. Dr. King declared to you that his institution, 
his body, his National League, is " an organization 
absolutely unsectarian." He has published the same 
thing in one of his documents addressed to the con-
vention under date of May 1st, " an organization abso-
lutely unsectarian." Among its managers I cannot find 
a Catholic. Among its petitioners that are here I find, 
so far as I know, but one Catholic—that is Charles P. 
Daly. I have shown you how much his opinions are 
worth. I t has issued various circulars, and I have 
some of them here. They were furnished me by the 
courtesy of Dr. King himself, so that they are authentic. 

A few years ago the Freedom of Worship bill 
was up in the Legislature, and Dr. King and associ-
ates attacked that. They declared that the "only 
party asking for such a legislation is the politico-eccle-
siastical department of Roman Catholicism which, 
wherever it has been in power, has always denied free-
dom of worship." They declare that " it is im-



44 

possible to classify into sects juvenile criminals 
or delinquents," and that when a delinquent gets 
into an institution the managers must govern 
as to its religious instruction. They declared 
that the Freedom of Worship bill was being 
" influenced to be passed by bribes and 
threats." They declared that " the passage of the 
so-called Freedom of Worship Bill would be clearly 
understood by the people as an open publication of 
an alliance between the parties responsible for its 
passage and the ambitious ecclesiastics who were pro-
moting it J " that, " unless we have a State religion, 
the fact that the State contributes in some measure to 
the support of such institutions, partly relieving them 
from the total charge of supporting these waifs, gives 
the State no right whatever to interfere with the re-
ligious teaching which may be provided or authorized 
by the managers of these institutions." In other 
words, Catholics committed to these institutions are 
not to be allowed to have their own religion taught to 
them. And then, in Document No. 2—which it issued 
as instructions for its subordinate lodges, or what-
ever they call them—I find this extraordinary lan-
guage : " Denominational institutions ; to see that no 
juvenile waifs, &c., are committed to the charge of de-
nominational institutions "—in this State, you will bear 
in mind, the committals must, so far as possible, be to 
institutions or societies of the same religious belief as 
those committed—" where they may be subjected to 
an education and training of a foreign character, 
where they will be deprived of the opportunities' 
of American training," &c. Now, this is the so-
ciety which is responsible for this amendment; 
these are its documents, and it shows what 
it regards as | absolutely non-sectarian." I t claims 
to be " absolutely non-sectarian." I t and its friends 
have not only all the intelligence and all the hon-
esty and all those qualities which Dr. King claimed 
to be in their exclusive possession, but they are abso-



45 

lutely non-sectarian. If that is so, I submit that, ac-
cording to their views, this amendment is intended to 
cut off—as I say is the intention—only Catholic insti-
tutions. If this National League is absolutely non-
sectarian, there is not a non-Catholic institution in this 
State which is sectarian. I would like to know if they 
claim that the House of Refuge is non-sectarian. The 
Freedom of Worship fight was over that. Is the 
Juvenile Asylum? I hope these questions will be 
answered, and answered specifically. Let us know 
what, in the opinion of these gentlemen, is the fact. Is 
the House of Refuge a sectarian institution, within the 
meaning of the proposed amendment ? Is the Juvenile 
Asylum a sectarian institution? Is the American 
Female Guardian Society, whose by-laws I read to 
you ? Is the House of Mercy ? Is the Infant's Asy-
lum ? Is the Nursery and Child's Hospital ? Is the 
Samaritan Home .for the Aged, as to which its 
report says it is "absolutely free from all sec-
tarian bias and open in its direction and objects to all 
Protestants," * * * " all Protestant denomina-
tions and whose managers represent indiscriminately 
our common Protestant Christianity." Let us know 
whether an institution of that kind is sectarian or not? 

By the way, let me say in passing, I see that Mr. 
Baker, who is, I think, the superintendent of St Luke's 
Hospital, spoke in behalf of the amendment and was 
a good deal shocked, at the idea of sectarian appropria-
tions, but St. Luke's Hospital cannot throw 
any stones about any donations to institutions, 
or about getting relieved of burden at the 
public expense. It stands to-day on a block 
three-quarters of which passed from the City of New 
York by a conveyance which, though not absolutely 
gratuitous, was so nearly gratuitous that the only con-
sideration was the release of some disputed claims in 
the lower part of the city. St. Luke's Hospital, more-
over, is pretty canny. They have sold their property 
to a body of speculators who, are advertising it for 



46 

sale as laid out for fine buildings. I thought I saw 
you looking at it the other day, Mr. Chairman— 

M R . LAUTERBACH | I do not suppose any of us mem-
bers of the convention will pay for it out of our per 
diem here. 

M R . BLISS : I presume not. And yet that same 
canny institution came to the last Legislature and got 
relief from an assessment for improvements on prop-
erty which it had sold. 

The question of the meaning of this word sectarian 
is no new one in connection with this question. 

In a controversy which arose in, I think 1841, the 
distinguished John C. Spencer, then Secretary of State 
and Superintendent of Public Instruction, had occasion 
in a communication to Governor Seward to consider 
incidentally this question of what is " sectarian." He 
said : 

"The Trustees of the Publicw School Society 
profess, and doubtless sincerely, their readiness 
to omit _ everything that may "justly be regarded 
as offensive ; they yet maintain, and properly, 
that education is imperfect without inculcating 
moral and religious principles, and hence they allow 
the reading of the Scriptures or portions of them and 
inculcate the leading principles of Christianity. But it 
is impossible to perceive how even these principles can 
be taught so as to be of any value without inculcating 
what is peculiar to some one or more denomina-
tions and denied by others. * * * Even the 
reading of the text of our common translation of 
the Scriptures is objected to by many. . * * * Even 
the moderate degree of religious instruction which the 
Public School Society imparts must, therefore, be 
'sectarian;' that is, it must favor one set of opinions 
in opposition to another; and it is believed that this 
always will be the result in any course of education 
that the wit of man can devise. If these views are 
sound, this dilemma is produced, that, while some de-
gree of religious instruction is indispensable, and will 
be had under all circumstances, it cannot be imparted 
without partaking to some extent of sectarian charac-
ter, and giving occasion of offense to those whose opin-
ions are thus impugned. 



47 

" The solution is the principle of the Constitution, 
absolute non-intervention. To this plan objections 
have been made that it would enable different religious 
denominations to establish schools of a sectarian char-
acter, and that thereby religious dissensions would be 
aggravated, if not generated. I t is believed to have 
been satisfactorily shown that there must be some de-
gree of religious instruction and that there can be none 
without partaking more or less of sectarian character, 
and that even the Public School Society has not been 
able and caDnot expect to be able to avoid the impu-
tation. The objection itself proceeds on a sectarian 
principle and assumes the power to control that which 
it is neither right nor practicable to subject to any 
domination. Religious doctrines of vital interest 
will be inculcated, not as theological exercises, but in-
cidentally in the course of literary and scientific in-
struction, and who will undertake to prohibit such 
instruction ? 

* * * * * * 

" I t is believed to be an error to suppose that the 
absence of all religious instruction, if it were practi-
cable, is a mode of avoiding sectarianism. On the con-
trary it would be in itself sectarian because it would 
be consonant to the views of a particular class and 
opposed to the opinions of other classes. Those who 
reject creeds and resist all efforts to infuse them into 
the minds of the young before they have arrived at a 
maturity of judgment which may enable them to form 
their own opinions, would be gratified by a system 
which so fully accomplishes their purposes, but there 
are those who hold contrary opinions, and who insist 
on guarding the young against the influence of their own 
passions and the contagion of vice by implanting 
in their minds and hearts those elements of faith 
which are held by this class to be 
indispensable foundations . of moral principles 
This description of person regards neutrality and indif-
ference as the most insidious forms of hostility. I t is 
not the business of the undersigned to express any 
opinion on the merits of those views. His only purpose 
is to show the mistake of those who suppose they may 
avoid sectarianism by avoiding all religious instruc-
tion." 

The question as to the meaning of the word " sec-



46 

sale as laid out for fine buildings. I thought I saw 
you looking at it the other day, Mr. Chairman— 

M E . LAUTERBACH : I do not suppose any of us mem-
bers of the convention will pay for it out of our per 
diem here. 

M B . BLISS : I presume not. And yet that same 
canny institution came to the last Legislature and got 
relief from an assessment for improvements on prop-
erty which it had sold. 

The question of the meaning of this word sectarian 
is no new one in connection with this question. 

In a controversy which arose in, I think 1841, the 
distinguished John C. Spencer, then Secretary of State 
and Superintendent of Public Instruction, had occasion 
in a communication to Governor Seward to consider 
incidentally this question of what is " sectarian." He 
said: 

"The Trustees of the Public* School Society 
profess, and doubtless sincerely, their readiness 
to omit _ everything that may justly be regarded 
as offensive ; they yet maintain, and properly, 
that education is imperfect without inculcating 
moral and religious principles, and hence they allow 
the reading of the Scriptures or portions of them and 
inculcate the leading principles of Christianity. But it 
is impossible to perceive how even these principles can 
be taught so as to be of any value without inculcating 
what is peculiar to some one or more denomina-
tions and denied by others. * * * Even the 
reading of the text of our common translation of 
the Scriptures is objected to by many. * * * Even 
the moderate degree of religious instruction which the 
Public School Society imparts must, therefore, be 
I sectarian;' that is, it must favor one set of opinions 
in opposition to another; and it is believed that this 
always will be the result in any course of education 
that the wit of man can devise. If these views are 
sound, this dilemma is produced, that, while some de-
gree of religious instruction is indispensable, and will 
be had under all circumstances, it cannot be imparted 
without partaking to some extent of sectarian charac-
ter, and giving occasion of offense to those whose opin-
ions are thus impugned. 



47 

i The solution is the principle of the Constitution, 
absolute non-intervention. To this plan objections 
have been made that it would enable different religious 
denominations to establish schools of a sectarian char-
acter, and that thereby religious dissensions would be 
aggravated, if not generated. I t is believed to have 
been satisfactorily shown that there must be some de-
gree of religious instruction and that there can be none 
without partaking more or less of sectarian character, 
and that even the Public School Society has not been 
able and cannot expect to be able to avoid the impu-
tation. The objection itself proceeds on a sectarian 
principle and assumes the power to control that which 
it is neither right nor practicable to subject to any 
domination. Religious doctrines of vital interest 
will be inculcated, not as theological exercises, but in-
cidentally in the course of literary and scientific in-
struction, and who will undertake to prohibit such 
instruction ? 

* * * * * * 

" I t is believed to be an error to suppose that the 
absence of all religious instruction, if it were practi-
cable, is a mode of avoiding sectarianism. On the con-
trary it would be in itself sectarian because it would 
be consonant to the views of a particular class and 
opposed to the opinions of other classes. Those who 
reject creeds and resist all efforts to infuse them into 
the minds of the young before they have arrived at a 
maturity of judgment which may enable them to form 
their own opinions, would be gratified by a system 
which so fully accomplishes their purposes, but there 
are those who hold contrary opinions, and who insist 
on guarding the young against the influence of their own 
passions and the contagion of vice by implanting 
in their minds and hearts those elements of faith 
which are held by this class to be 
indispensable foundations . of moral principles 
This description of person regards neutrality and indif-
ference as the most insidious forms of hostility. It is 
not the business of the undersigned to express any 
opinion on the merits of those views. His only purpose 
is to show the mistake of those who suppose they may 
avoid sectarianism by avoiding all religious instruc-
tion." 

The question as to the meaning of the word " sec-



48 

tarian " came up in the Convention of 1867, and Judge 
DALY, whose letter was read by Dr. King, and who 
appears as the one known Catholic supporter of 
this amendment, there used the following language : 

" I t is sought to get over that difficulty by adding to 
the word ' religious ' the words ' or sectarian.' What 
is a sectarian institution ? Let us take the oldest form of 
religion amongst us —that of the primitive people who 
preached Christianity in the establishment of the mono-
theistic worship of one God—the Jews. The Jew will say 
that he is no sectarian, because his was the first 
religion that established the worship of a single God 
and that, as the etymology of the word sectarian de-
notes, which is " cut off" or " separated from," all the 
rest have separated from and are sectarians, while he 
is of the original faith, that the whole body of Christ-
ians are " breakers off" from the primitive form of 
worship which his ancestors established. If you take 
the Christian faith, then the oldest existing form of 
that faith is the one of which I am a member—the 
Eoman Catholic ; and I may say with regard to the 
subsequent faiths called Christian, that they are sec-
tarian, because they are " breakers off" and " seceders " 
that the term " sect " applies to them and does not 
apply to the Roman Catholic faith, which represents 
the prior organization of the Christian Church. 

* * * " It is a matter of no consequence to the 
State, in the bestowal of its bounty, whether children 
are educated to be Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
Methodists or otherwise, if these denominations choose 
to take the matter in charge, and give the children of 
their denomination a good education, though it may be 
in accordance with the denominational religious views. 
I t should not be the desire of any one denomination to 
bring about a state of things by which children of 
another sect shall be required in their education to 
conform to the doctrines of a different faith from that 
in which their parents wish them to be brought up." 

Referring to the provision looking merely to a State 
Board, which it was proposed, in 1867, to insert in the . 
Constitution, Judge DALY added : 

" I t has been my vocation for many years to pass 
upon the interpretation of language embodied in pro-



49 

visions of this nature in our laws, and I speak of the 
language here employed with something of the same 
confidence which a mechanic feels in respect to the use 
of his tools. I say, in the first place, that this pro-
vision is one which belongs legitimately to the Legis-
lature, and that if 1 were sitting as a legislator, and 
were called to (Consider this section and to adopt it as 
the law, I should not, though it might be changed the 
following year, be willing to vote for it. I should have 
so much doubt and uncertainty, in regard to the 
practical operation of the provision, that I should not 
be willing to assent to its enactment for a single year. 
If that be the effect upon the mind in reading this pro-
vision, and I have read it carefully over several times, 
what views must I take when it is deliberately proposed 
in the Convention to enact it in the fundamental law 
of the State, and make it a permanent and unchange-
able provision for a period of twenty years; that, what-
ever be its operation or effect, to put it out of the 
power of the Legislature to make any change or altera-
tion in it." 

I commend these views to you and to Dr. King. 
But to resume, if you want to make this amendment, 

consistent you must make it read—insert in the closing 
sentence this language, " An institution which is 
wholly or in part under sectarian or Roman Catholic 
or Protestant or ecclesiastical control." Then you 
hit all the institutions alike. As it is now, you don't 
hit them. 

M R , LAUTEEBACH : You left Mr. Stern out. 
. M E . BLISS : That is so, I left the Hebrews out. 
[Laughter.] 

Further than this let me say a word on the question 
of exemption. At the last meeting some one referred 
to that subject, and you, Mr. Chairman, said that ex-
emptions were before another committee. I submit, 
however, that that is not conclusive and that the sub-
ject of exemptiou from taxation has a very direct and 
pertinent connection with the precise question of this 
amendment; and that, if you are to exempt, as you 
do,. churches, ministers' houses, and various , things. 



50 

of that sort that are thoroughly ecclesiastical, you 
ought to put in a provision in this amendment—and it 
belongs here, and I would put it in precisely in this 
way " founding, maintaining or aiding by appropriation, 
payment for services, expenses or in any other manner, 
or by exemption from taxes, assessments or other public 
burdens, any church, religious denomination or religious 
society, &c." Can you be consistent in passing this 
amendment unless you put right in it that provision 
about exemption ? Is there any difference in principle 
between taking a thousand dollars out of the taxpayers 
and paying it over to an institution, and in relieving 
that institution from taxation to the extent of a 
thousand dollars and throwing that burden on others ? 
I do not say you should do that thing at all. I simply 
urge that if you are going to be consistent, if you are 
going to pass an amendment which will not subject 
you to derision, you must in the nature of the case put 
some such provision as that into your amendment. 

Bishop Doane undertook to state the distinction be-
tween donation and exemption, and I remind you of 
" what a fist" he made of it. He said, " The difference 
between the exemption of a school or church from taxa-
tion, and a donation from a State to a church, is simply 
this: that the work of the church and schoolis pious work, 
reformatory work, which relieves the State of just so 
much work in punishing criminals by preventing them, 
and, therefore, I believe is service done by the church 
or school which earns the wage exemption from taxa-
tion." Is not that precisely what every one of these 
institutions receiving public moneys does—whether 
Protestant or Catholic; and was not Mr. McDonough 
right when he replied to Bishop Doane : 1 1 believe 
you are right, Doctor: that would cause donations 
to be given to every school in the State." 

A leading journal of New England said the other -
day: 

" I t is a practical question and not by any means 
a religious one, whether the Roman Catholic Church, 



51 

for example, with its trained and disciplined orders of 
self-denying men and women formally consecrated to 
the service of their fellow men, can expend a certain 
portion of the benevolent fund of the State with better 
result than any State agency can do. * * * A po-
sition of absolute religious neutrality implies the prac-
tice of perfectly even-handed toleration. One religious 
sect must be held to be quite as good as another, and 
because they are religious the common end of all must 
be assumed to be to make men better, more law- abiding, 
more honest and of purer mind and conduct. Each and 
all of them, therefore, whether Roman Catholic, Metho-
dist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, Unitarian or 
Hebrew, when they apply their machinery to the 
promotion of work which the State deems it to be a 
public duty to forward, may justly claim recognition as 
agencies eminently fitted for the relief of the distressed, 
the destitute or the suffering. The point may be freely 
conceded that no State money should be expended by 
any agency whatever without being followed by State 
supervision. But, that there is something essentially 
wrong in allowing a Boman Catholic orphan asylum to 
have any aid from the public treasury, while no ex-
ception can be taken to giving the money of the tax-
payers to a sectarian Children's Aid Society or a Society 
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a proposi-
tion difficult to understand. Its only intelligible basis 
is one of sectarian rancor, except, indeed, it be the 
belief that no admixture of religion with benevolence 
ought to have legal recognition, and that would be fatal 
to the existence of most philanthropic efforts whether 
avowedly sectarian or not." 

I intended to have said something before closing in 
correction of a common error that in the City of New 
York the Catholics have received large gifts of land for 
nothing, or for merely nominal sums, while the Prot-
estants have received but few such gifts. Among cer-
tain documents which I will leave with the Committee 
is a small pamphlet entitled "• Grants of Public Lands 
to Private Charities in the City of New York," which 
contains what I believe to be an accurate history of all 
such gifts or grants of land. I t shows that from the 
commencement of time the Catholic bodies have had 



three grants of land and the Protestant bodies have 
had eighteen. The relative value of the grants, 
whether taken at the time they were made or judged 
now, will be largely against the Catholics. The Cath-
olics have never had permission to sell a lot granted to 
them by the city, and apply the proceeds to general 
purposes. That cannot be said of any other denomina-
tion—not even of the Hebrews. 

Either the friends of this amendment desire to stop 
all appropriations to institutions not maintained and 
controlled by the State or they don't. If they want to 
confine it to State institutions, why don't they say so 
plainly and simply ? I can see that there would" be 
some ground of principle in such a provision, but the 
friends of the amendment obviously do not want to go 
so far. Mr. Butler declares he does not wish to do 
that, because his little three-hundred-dollar institution 
at Yonkers would get hurt. If you do not want to go 
so far, and do want to prohibit the existing system 
then draw an amendment which has some 
approach to justice in its provisions, which shall 
lead to fairness between Catholic and Protestant in-
stitutions. Don't, as does this amendment, practically 
declare that no appropriation shall be made to a 
Catholic institution, because Catholics are a sect, but 
that appropriations may continue to be made to Prot-
estant institutions, provided they are managed or con-
trolled by more than one of the sixty or seventy Prot-
estant sects which exist. You cannot conceal from 
yourselves or your constituents that such an amend-
ment is a sham. Assuming, as I do, that you do not 
mean to recommend any such amendment as this, I say 
it is your duty, if you are going to recommend any, to 
draw one which will not be such a sham and fraud as 
this is. How you are to do it I confess I cannot 
quite see ; but, if you are to have any amendment of 
the Constitution upon the lines indicated by this 
amendment, you must do it, or attempt to do it. 
Of course, you would not dare to propose to 



53 

provide that no appropriation shall be made for the 
support of the wards of the State in any institution in 
which religious instruction is given. You would not 
at this day venture to imitate Stephen Girard. I say 
that you would not, because even the Rev. James M. 
King has used the following language : 

" What constitutes real education, and what are the 
perils of education when purely secular ? Education 
consists in the symmetrical development of the whole 
man for the purpose of his creation. This purpose is 
admitted to be moral. The State is preparing citizens 
to be competent to their responsibilities, and these are 
all moral. Secularized education is a misnomer. I t 
is no education at all. * * . * Many children and 
youth of the nation live under family conditions in-
compatible with self-respect or with moral purity. And 
these get all their education from the State. Under a 
republican form of government not only, but under any 
government, in fact, the morality of the Christian re-
ligion must constitute the basis of its educational sys-
tem for the training of its citizenship, if the form and 
privileges of government are to be perpetuated. In 
case secular education is to be made non-Christian in 
order to be made constitutional, there must be non-
Christian editions of text-books prepared by the State. 
And these must cover the fields of history, natural 
science, mental and moral philosophy and general lit-
erature. Christian truths and facts are so ingrained in 
the sources of knowledge of English-speaking people 
that the secular teacher who seeks to avoid the asser-
tion or denial of them will find his teaching 
reduced to very narrow rudiments. To avoid, in in-
struction, the facts concerning the work and worth 
of Christianity in our history is to impart 
anti-Christian instruction not only, but to misrepre-
sent, and this is to destroy the basis of all morals; and 
moral instruction cannot be separated at any point or 
for any period of time from the intellectual without 
injury. The public schools cannot be wholly secular-
ized and claim to educate. They cannot be wholly 
secularized unless they are confined to the barest ele-
mentary instruction, and this would not be education, 
but simply getting ready to acquire knowledge. * * * 
In view of the fact that any adequate education for re-
sponsible citizenship cannot be entirely secular, we 



54 

demand as cin ultimatum that the schools, the nurseries 
of our citizenship, shall not be handed over to 
godless instruction and divorced from Christian moral 
culture, thus becoming the nurseries of vice and immor-
ality where God is ignored. * * * The attitude 
we ought to assume in case our rightful demands are 
not conceded; the State failing to meet the require-
ments of a citizenship made up of accountable beings, 
and the public schools becoming godless and, there-
fore, necessarily immoral, Christian citizens must deny 
the right of the State to assume to give such an inade-
quate education. The added demands that we believe 
it is high time we announced : Yes, more than this, I 
am about convinced that the time has come when we 
must demand that the State, assuming to teach its 
citizenship as a preparation for the responsibilities of 
citizenship, must not only recognize Christianity as the 
religion of the people in conformity with historical and 
judicial precedent, but must require the teaching of 
Christian morality wherever education is supported by 
taxation or by State grant." 

In other words, Dr. King claims that you must sep-
arate Church and State ; and not only whenever you give 
public money for the support of the wards of the 
State, but in your public schools, you must 
require a Christian education—by which he 
means a Protestant education. You will hardly agree 
with him, Mr. Chairman; but you will agree with 
me that the man who uses such language must be op-
posed to institutions, whether State or private, in which 
no provision is made for religious education. What, 
then, will you do ? Have only State institutions, with 
freedom of worship therein for every sect or denomina-
tion ? That would have a basis of principle to recom-
mend it. Have private institutions in which the State 
aids to support its wards and secures them religious 
instruction in the religion to which they belong ? That 
is, substantially, the present system. Or will you pro-
vide^what this amendment seeks to establish by a 
juggle of language—that public moneys shall be given 
only to Protestant institutions, where, if there is any 



55 

religious instruction, it must be Protestant, and where 
all the influences that surround Catholic or Hebrew 
children shall be Protestant ? 

This question, I say, you must decide, and decide it 
in such a manner that no distinction can possibly be 
introduced into the Constitution between any sect or 
denomination, whether Christian or Hebrew, Protest-
ant or Catholic ; in such way, moreover, that your con-
clusion does not shock the sense of justice of the aver-
age American. You cannot palter with words, or 
quibble with adjectives. If your conclusion even seems 
to lean one way or the other, against or for Protestant 
or Hebrew or Catholic, your whole work will go down 
when submitted to the people. 

While a large portion of the people of this State are 
Protestants, a larger portion of them are fair, and, 
bearing in mind that fact, I respectfully say that you 
will not dare to introduce into the Constitution a pro-
vision which is shown to be neither fair nor just. 

In conclusion, I thank you, gentlemen, for the 
patience and attention with which you have listened to 
me. I claim to have established the following con-
clusions : First, that all question of the schools 
and school funds is eliminated. Second, that the 
system of using public moneys in support of the 
wards of the State in private institutions was 
introduced, not by Catholics, but by Protestants. 
Third, that that system has, in the past, had 
the support of the wisest and best men of all faiths, 
and that nothing has occurred to weaken the force of 
the reasons which led to the introduction and develop-
ment of the system. Fourth, that it is not a system of 
donation or gratuity, but a system under which the 
State secures the support of those whom it is bound to 
support somewhere at such expense that it saves 
an average of $219.96 per head over what it would 
cost if the same persons were supported in the 
State institutions; and that to put an end to this 
system you add at once to the annual expenses of the 



56 

State $4,621,534.08, even if the rich Protestants are 
able and willing to entirely support the wards of the 
State now in their institutions, and $7,544,385.64 if 
such is not the case. Fifth, that it is not a source of 
profit to the Catholic institutions, but that, as a whole, 
they are compelled, to meet their expenses, to rely upon 
the voluntary contributions of individuals; and that, if 
the payments of public moneys are withdrawn, the 
institutions must be closed or greatly narrowed in their 
work. Sixth, that the amendment is urged by incor-
rect and misleading statements proceeding from those 
who got it up. Seventh, that the proposed amendment 
is, by the admission of those who prepared it, defective ; 
that it is impossible to tell what it means, and that 
there is every reason to believe that it is intentionally 
so obscure and deceptive in its language that it will 
apply only to Catholics and Hebrews. Eighth, that at 
most there should be inserted into the Constitution a 
clause limiting appropriations to those who are en-
titled to claim support from the public and to a per-
centage of the actual cost of their support. 

The members of the committee will receive three 
printed documents : One entitled Grants of Public 
Lands to Private Charities in the City of New York ; 
one entitled Private Charities and Public Money, and 
one entitled Payments to Private Charities by the City 
of New York. The two former are based on articles 
prepared by the late J . TJ. G. Hasserd, of the " New 
York Tribune," the gentleman, I believe, who de-
ciphered the famous cipher despatch of the Presidential 
Campaign of 1876. The other one has been prepared 
by Mr. E. J . McGuire. I commend them, especially 
the latter, to your careful study. 

I again thank you for your patience. 
ME. LAUTEBB̂CH : The Committee are indebted to 

you. 





ì fc^fei^t 
fírij&fiSv/'f 

0 

fffiM ¿/fRffl ¡ ¡ ¡S 
ÉM¡í 
« I 

'''f'-'MiwS 

S e B ® 

JA • »KwjMI.W 

a 

1 

" ' i l f a Ä ' 
Myl