Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry that I cannot yield to the request of the honorable member from Massachusetts, because I think there is a very clear and paramount principle involved. If the bill passes, and the corporators of this institution get possession of the child 1st, before an institution belonging to the religious sect to which the parents of the child belongs can get possession of him, then they are to take him away from the instruction which that sect would give him. I cannot imagine what possible inconvenience it can be to this society, what possible injurious effect it can have upon the object for which we are asked to incorporate them, if it be made their duty, when they ascertain in such way as the amendment provides that the parents of the child belong to any particular sect, and that sect has an institution capable of taking care of the child, to refer the child to that institution. We shall have a controversy beyond all doubt, I think, if a different rule prevail. Suppose the parent is away or the child is wandering away from his home and he is taken possession of, as it is made the duty of these corporators to do; and the parent returns, or the parent finds out where his child is, where he has wandered, and he insists upon having possession of the child upon the ground that he has been taken from him without his knowledge or consent, and is being educated in a religious faith which he does not hold, and an application be made to the court, that will produce a religious contest which it will be impossible to avoid. In other words, without being intended, of course, (because I know the corporators mean to do what they think to be right,) it is really forcing out of the possession of the parent, who is not upon the spot to look over the interest of the child, his child, and to assume on the part of Congress the authority to educate the child as they think proper. Let me illustrate it by referring to my friendfrom Maine. It may happen to, as it hap pens to parents equally respectable, that his child wanders away and gets into the city of Washington without his knowledge; he does not know where he is, and there is a Catholic institution here endowed with the powers you are about to confer on this institution, and they take possession of the child in the city of Washington and place the child within their own control and insist upon educating him in their religious faith; what would he say if he found it out? He would insist on having possession of the child and having the child educated according to the faith which he holds. I think he would complain very much. I think I should complain if the case was mine. Looking to the decision which we hold in relation to religious faith, what right have we to step in between the parent and the child and claim the power to educate the child in a religion according to our own notions, and not in accordance to the notions of him or of her who is more particularly interested in the welfare of the child? I know, Mr. President, that this is a matter in which the Catholic church particularly take a deep interest. Nearly all the immigrants that come from Europe, especially from Ireland, belong to that faith. Although they are very industrious, a great many of them are comparatively careless; but they believe in the doctrine of their church, and in no other. It happens that sometimes their children are taken up and placed in charge of an institution of this description and brought up in a different be lief, and often they are unable even to find out that they are in existence. if I thought it would interfere with the hu mane purposes of the franchise I would not offer the amendment, but believing, as I do, that it will promote the object and at the same time secure the rights of all citizens I must ask for a vote upon the amendment.