The religious rights, although for the most part peculiar to the American Constitution, adopted by us, indeed, as a result of the history of the two or three centuries preceding in England, but hardly in any particular a part of the British Constitution, were by the reason of our very origin so strongly asserted and so highly valued with us that no legislation has been found necessary on the subject.  Perhaps the sole important instance in which the question has come up has been that of instruction in the public schools and the use of the money raised by common taxation for special religious purposes.  Very generally the latter is forbidden in our State constitutions, the Federal Constitution by the First Amendment merely protecting the right from the action of Congress.  Owing to decisions of the Supreme Court, in the South it has become possible to divide school appropriations between schools for whites and blacks, and it is presumable that the same thing might be done as, for instance, between Roman Catholics and others, and something of the sort has, I believe, been done with the appropriations for the education of Indians.

The few statutes we find upon this matter tend to still further extend and liberalize religious rights.  Almost universally now a man is not forbidden from testifying or being a witness by reason of his belief or disbelief, even when he is an atheist.  The latter law is not, however, quite universal.  He must, in some States, believe at least in the existence of God, or of a future state of reward or punishment.  Mormons, at one time, claimed the right to practise polygamy as a part of their religion guaranteed to them by the Constitution; the contention did not prevail; on the contrary the Mormon States were made to submit to an enabling act under which they bound themselves to adopt State constitutions providing for all time against polygamous practices.  Such a treaty is not, of course, binding upon a sovereign State unless Mormonism be deemed inconsistent with a republican form of government; so that Utah, for instance, has probably the right to re-establish Mormonism to-morrow so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned.  Whether it would be permitted by a strenuous president having public sentiment at his back may indeed be questioned.  In like manner, Christian Science practitioners have invoked the constitutional right of religious belief against the common law requiring that those offering themselves to practise medicine should be reasonably skilled in their trade.  Legislation permitting Christian Scientists to practise freely has been attempted in nearly all the States, but has not, so far as I am informed, succeeded in any, although a good many States have adopted statutes extending the right to osteopaths.  Under the common law of England, re-established in Massachusetts by a famous decision[1] twenty years ago, a person holding himself out as a surgeon or medical practitioner, who is absolutely uninstructed and ignorant, is guilty even of criminal negligence, and responsible for the death of his patient, even to the point of manslaughter.