Page:The Granite Monthly Volume 10.djvu/342

 328

��Intolci'ance in JVew Hampshire.

��representative, who was not of the Protestant religion. While this was treated most of the time as a dead letter, with a failure or two of at- tempted repeal, it was finally expung- ed from the constitution in 1877. This clause against Romanists, in the constitutions of 1779 and of 1792, was equalled also by anotlier as positive against F'rench infidelity and deism. They seemed to think that a clearer sense of duty and nobler principles of patriotism would inhere in a charac- ter for public service that was dis- tinctly Christian.

These provisions, save the one re- stricting voting and election to the offices named, seem fair and equitable. But constitution and law make one thing ; their application in practice and construction by the courts fre- quently mean an ntter distortion. This was the case in New Hampshire progress. These laws were so con- strued by practice, by public opinion, and by the juries, that much distress followed. As early as 1760 the First Baptist Society of Newton was sued to collect taxes for the standing orr der. The whole machinery of town and state government being in the hands of the standing order, they seem to have impeded greatly the in- coming of other churches than the Congregational. This done, and it was plain they could consider every- body in a town as coming under the provisions of the law, that all who did not conscientiously and constant- ly attend any particular sect or de- nomination, recognized by custom, courts, or juries, was surely taxable to maintain the settled minister. The most rigid Calvinism was preach- ed, the air was full of irrepressible

��controversy, and there was much dis- sent from the doctrines and practices of the standing order. Men under such religious teaching grew morally morbid, and were ripe for " new lights," as most other sects were called. It is no wonder, under such influences, legal and religious, that many grew intolerant. With that intolerance grew a deep-seated determination on the part of many that things should be different. Nat- urally men did not want to pay taxes to support a sect some of whose ten- ets they did not believe, whose church government was repugnant, and whose spirit was oppressive. So there was much protesting by those people be- longing to sects which were not recog- uized by the laws as sects, and from many who did not belong to any sect at all. These " new lights " or inter- loping sects were ready to join with those not belonging to any persuasion in demanding that an end be made to such false assumptions. There was a broadening vision of religious liber- ty, and naturally it came first to those oppressed. A Baptist minister is said to have suffered imprisonment rather than pay those unjust assess- ments.

In a case in the Hillsborough court, May, 1803, Smith, C. J., by which John Muzzy brought action against Samuel Wilkins and others who acted as assessors for the parish of Am- herst, in 1795, and by whom Muzzy was imprisoned because he would not I)ay his tax of seventy-five cents to- ward the settled minister's salary, it was decided that Muzzy, being a Presbyterian, was exempt from the tax, since Presbyterians were a dif- ferent sect under the constitution and

�� �