Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Plattsmouth journal. (Plattsmouth, Nebraska) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 15, 1903)
SUPPLEMENT TO THE PLATTSMOUTH JOURNAL. HLATTSMOUTH, NEBRASKA. Thursday, Octobtr 15, 1903. NEWSPAPER COMMENTS. E d sard Howard in the Columbus Telegram: The Blbie rase has, by ef fort of the Barnes managers, become a uure-enough issue in the state cam paign. All right. Judge Sullivan's friends do not fear the issue. That leclslon was the unanimous judgment of all three members of the supreme ourt. That opinion was written by Judge Sullivan, and so. consequently, 'it has been spoken of as his decision. The question decided wa.i a question of law, and no reputable lawyer in Nebraska, whether Catholic, Protest ant, Jew or infidel, has ever publicly asserted that the decision was not found. The decision has, for politi cal effect, been bitterly assailed. The people who assail it are, as a rule, men who have neither read either the constitution of our state nor Judge Sullivan's opinion in this case men wholly incompetent to pass upon a grave question of constitutional law. Ordinarily men would not act upon th judgment of such persons, nor give any attention to it hi a law suit involving thirty cents. Those who have assailed the Bible decision are utterly unreasonable. They assume that the law of the land is just what they, think it ought to be. They for get, or else never knew, that the con stitution does not prohibit the reading of the Bible In the public schools, but !oes i.rohibU the giving of sectarian last ruction. What the court decided was that the reading of certain jor tions of the Bible, such, for instance, as the account of the recreation, thi Proverbs of Solomon, the Psalms of David, or the story of Ruth, is not sectarian instruction, whether the Catholic or Protestant version be used. The decision is sound law be yond all question, and it should not be condemned, discredited nor re versed at the polls. Judges should cut be turned down because forsooth they refuse to make popular decisions. If they stand true to the constitution and their official oaths they should be sustained by the people. Rev. John Williams in Omaha Bee: "It goes without saying that I would upon the question involved in the Bible case) take the judgment of a trained jurist like. Judge Sullivan in preference to ten thousand opinions of men like myself or John RushY Omaha Examiner (independent): You can bet on one thing. It is that Judge Barnes will never undertake to tell any one how he would have de cided that Bible case had he been su preme judge. The same may be said of a good many people who are apparently frantic about the deci sion. Even those who are calling .tudge Sullivan's decision a straddle don't say upon which side of it they would have-landed if they had had to decide it without straddling. COURT LANGUAGE IN NEBRASKA How Far a Lawyer May Go in the Use of Anathemas. Justice Sullivan of the supreme court of Nebraska ia rapidly making a name for himself by .his use of clean-cut, vigorous English. ' His lat est effusion lays down the law of Ne braska, as to how far lawyer may go to influence a jury in the use of anathemas. It was in the case of an old man living in Omaha who charged William Reedr a saloon keeper, with the theft of $250 from his person. The prosecuting attorney, in addressing the jury, declared: "I hope God will send down lightning from Heaven and consume me if the defendant is not guilty." - Complaint was made of the , lan guage, and Justice Sullivan ruled: "The fact that he avouched his faith In the justice of his cause by offer ing himself to ordeal comes under the blading of 'professional enthusiasm. Mot much importance should be at tached to it. It is of no significance, but a mere rhetorical flourish. Call ing spirits from the vasty deep ' or lightning from the sky is, in this ma terialistic age. a perfectly harmless diversion, for, however vehement the call may be, no answer is expected." Reed's conviction was affirmed. Ill I II I I II ll I II I I I I I I II III THE BIBLE IN THE iiiniiiniiiiinniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiinnii Tlie decision of the Nebraska supreme court in what is known as the "Bible ca?e" has become an issue in the campaign. This deci sion was the unanimous j figment of the court, but the reasons for it were formulated by the chief justice, and so it is commonly referred to as his decision. The question decided was a question of law, pure and simple. .-Ill lazcyers, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Jew or infulel, are, we believe, agreed that the case was correctly deter mined. But there are people who know nothing' whatever about law, who have read neither tilt constitution nor the opinion, asserting on the street corners and in the press that the decision is wrong. They not only declare that the decision is wrong, but they want Judge Sul livan defeated for the part he had in rendering it. This matter is up to the voters. A vote against Judge Sullivan on this issue is a vote of censure upon the entire court. If judges stand true to the con stitution and their official oaths they ought at least to escape con demnation by popular vote. For the benefit of those who prefer to judge for themselves, the opinion is set out in full below. JUDGE SULLIVAN'S OPINION IN THE BIBLE CASE. "This case was decided at the last term, and is now before us on motion for a rehearing. In the brief filed in support of the motion, the distin guished courdel for respondents has with considerable ardor attacked, not only the decision, but what he sup- oo3ed to be its implications. The questions discussed are important, and they, have received our most serious consideration. We have again with great care gone over the arguments of counsel, and have again critically examined all. of the adjudged cases bearing directly or indirectly upon the points in controversy. The decision of the supreme court of Michigan a decision rendered by a divided besch may perhaps be regarded as an authority in favor of one of the positions for which respondents con tend, but opposed to that case are the unanimous judgments' of the highest courts of Ohio and Wisconsin. Other cases cited in the briefs are based upon constitutional provisions essen tially different from ours, and are therefore entitled to but little weight as precedents. The fact that there have been Bible reading and religious exercises in many of the public schools ever since the present consti tution was adopted is cited as evidence of a contemporaneous and practical construction in favor of the practice; but, in our opinion, it is rather to be regarded as evidence of the temper ate and. tolerant spirit of our people, of the waning influence of doctrinal differences, and of a clearer and more general perception of the cardinal truth that, after all. Christianity is greater than creed. It has been the policy of some rulers (as, for in stance, Catherine de Medici) to strengthen the throne by dividing the people; but in this country it has been the constant policy of government to unite the people, to bring them closer and closer together, to dissipate race and religious prejudices, and to fuse their sentiments and aspirations. One of the means to accomplish this end was t9 give all religious ects and sys tems a free field and no favors. So far as religion is concerned, the lais sez falre" theory of government has been given the widest possible scope. The suggestion that it is the duty of the government to teach religion has no basis whatever in the constitution or laws of thi3 state, nor in the his tory of our people. The teaching of religion would mean teaching the sys tem of faith and worship of one or more of the religious sects. It would mean sectarianism in the public schools, and to put sectarianism into the public schools would, according to the opinion prevailing when the con stitution was ratified, be to put ven om into the body politic. In section 4 of the bill of rights we find this language: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass suita ble laws to protect every religious de nomination in the peaceable enjoy ment of its own mode of public wor ship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction. There is no uncertainty as to the meaning of this clause; there is no room for const ric tion; and where, as Judge Cooley has said, the meaning of an instrument is plainly declared by the Instrument it self, courts are not at liberty to search elsewhere. The duty of the state with respect to religion its whole duty is 'to protect every religious de nomination ia the peaceable enjoy 1 1 II II I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC SCHOOLS i ment of its own mode of public wor ship.' This duty is not due alone to the different denominations of the Christian religion, but is due to every religious body, organization or soci ety whose members are accustomed to come together for the purpose of worshiping the Supreme Being. The framers of the constitution, after ex pressing their gratitude to Almighty God for freedom, declared that the right of all persons to worship ac cording to the dictates .of their own consciences is a natural and inde feasible right. This right of the re lator has been infringed. Without his consent and over-his protest his chil dren have been compelled to attend divine worship and to participate in it.- They have been obliged to give homage to God, not according to the dictates of their own consciences or the consciences of their parents, but according to the dictates of the con science of the teacher. Undoubtedly the teacher is a sincere and well meaning young woman, and was actu ated by the purest and best motives; but, in discharging what she conceiv ed to be an imperative duty to her Creator, she violated a right secured to-the relator by the supreme' law of the state. The regular morning ex ercises of the school consisted of a formal or improvised prayer, followed by the singing of gospel hymns, such as 'Jesus, Lover of My Soul' and 'When He Cometh. In these exercises the pupils were compelled to join, and it was their custom, when prayer was offered, to rise from their seats and stand in an attitude of reverence. "It is said that the relator's chil dren were subjected to no compulsion, but that is not true. It was not only their right to attend the school, but, under the statute section 1, subd. 16, c. 79, comp. st. 1901). it was their duty to attend that school, or some other. As the morning exercises were conducted during school hours, it is difficult to see how they could attend the school without attending worship. But in our view - they were not only compelled to attend worship, but to participate in it. The school being in session, the right to command was vested in the teacher, and the duty of obedience imposed upon the pupils. Under such circumstances a request and a command have the same mean ing. A request from one in authority is understood to be a mere euphem ism. It is, in fact, a command in an inoffensive form. The teacher, in de scribing her manner of conducting the exercises, says that after reading from the bible she 'called upon the pupils to rise, and that she 'had them rise from their seats and stand while she offered prayer. When we take into account the fact that she was dealing with children, it can hardly.be doubt ed that any pupils who joined unwill ingly in the exercises joined under compulsion. Whether Mr. Freeman was reasonable or unreasonable in ob jecting to his children actively or pas sively participating in the simple re ligious service conducted by the teach er is altogether immaterial. Some men always have been unreasonable in such matters, and their right to continue to be unreasonable is guar anteed by the constitntion.and char acterized as a natural and indefeas ible right. The privilege of choosing when, where, and how he shall wor ship is g'ven unconditionally to every one. He may freely choose his own prayers, songs and postures ;and none of these may be lawfully imposed upon ' him, either in the public schools or elsewhere, except possibly in the pe nal, reformatory, or other institutions where the state stands in loco paren tis to the inmates. "In order to make it entirely clear that the Bible was not read in the school as mere literature, and that the hymns were not sung as a vocal ex ercise, and that the prayers were not offered for the sake of their reflex in fluence, but that the several acts wen acts of religious homage and were ii tended to be devotional, we quote from the testimony of the teacher: Q. Now, you say thin matter of read ing the Bible and singing of hymns was talked over by Mr. Odell at the time he employed you? A. Yes. sir. Q. VU you talk about any other branches that you was going to teach at that time? A. I spoke about having new books, needing a new set of books. Q. Why was it that you and he thought it proper and necessary that these exercises should be conducted? A. One reason I spoke about it was because I had said at the beginning that I did not care to take the contract unless I had the privilege of having the exercises; 1 said I was in favor of doing all I could for the district, and was in favor of doing all I could to have a good school. .Q. Why did you think these exercises so Important? A. There was nothing, only I had always had them, and I knew they had done away with them. Q. And you couldn't open a school without them? A. Not ac cording . to my belief; no, . air? Q. -According to your belief, then, thes are very necessary as a part of the school exercises? A. I think it Is important to have reading ot the Bible and singing or songs in the school. Q. And then you think that the way you have of read ing the Bible is very important? A. I think it is the book of all books. Q. For what purpose do you read it? A. For the benefit of myself and those with whom I come in contact. Q. In what particular way do you expect to benefit yourself and the children? A. I think there is a higher being that lias some thing to do with our actions, and 1 know In many Instances I nave been di rected to do thing. right, wherein if 1 hadn't trusted in him, my Savior, 1 would have been led away. CJ. And you read that book as religious exercises be cause you think it is important for that purpose, doa't you? A. I think it !. Q. Yes; and you read it because you think it is the word of God? A. Yes. sir; I do.. Q. And you believe that sincerely? A. Yes. sir; I do. Q. And you select .'jch parts to read as you think proper, don't you? A. Yes, sir; just as I think it would be best for the pupils and my self. Q. And whenever you see fit to read you read? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you read whatever you see fit to read? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you read from the new testament and the old testa ment, both? A. Yes. sir. Q. And why do you consider it necessary to offer a prayer? A. I think we are taught to. Q. Yes; you think it is done as an act of worship the whole thing? A. We think it Is; yes, sir. Q. Intended to wor ship Ood? A. Yes, sir. "It is said by Commissioner Ames that, the morning exercises conducted by Miss Beecher constituted sectarian instruction. This conclusion is vigoN ously assailed, but, in our judgment, it is warranted by the evidence, and we adhere to it. The decision does not. however, go to the extent of en tirely excluding the Bible from the public schools. It goes only to the extent of denying the right to use it for the purpose of imparting sectarian instruction. The pith of the opinion is in the syllabus, which declares that 'exercises by a teacher in a public school in a school building, in school hours, and in the presence of the pu pils, consisting of the reading of pass ages from the Bible and in the sing ing of songs and hymns and offering prayer to the Deity, in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs, customs or usages of sectarian churches or reli gious organizations, are forbidden by the constitution of this state.' Cer tainly the Iliad may be read in the schools without inculcating a belief in the Olympic divinities, and the Koran may be read without teaching the Moslem faith. Why may not the Bi ble be also read without indoctrining children in the creed or dogma of any sect? Its contents are largely histor ical and moral. Its language is une qualed in purity and elegance. Its style has never been surpassed. Among the classics of our literature it stands' pre-eminent. It has been suggested that the English Bible is, in a special and limited sense, a sectarian book. To be sure, there are, according to the Catholic claim, vital points of dif ference with respect to faith and mor als between it and the Douay version. In a Pennsylvania case cited by coun sel for respondents, the author of the opinion says that he noted over fifty points of difference between the two versions some of them important, and others trivial. These differences constitute the basis of some of the peculiarities of faith and practice that distinguish Catholicism from Protest antism, and make the adherents of each a- distinct Christian sect. Bu the fact that the King James transla-. tion mav be used to Inculcate sectar ian doctrines affords no jrAjraptlofl that it will be so used The law does not forbid the use of the Bible irv either version in the public schools. It is not proscribed either by the con stitution or the statutes, and th courts have no right to declare its use to be unlawful because It is pos sible or probable that those who are privileged to use it will misuse the privilege by attempting to propagate their own peculiar theological or ec cleaiaiitical views and opinions. The poini where the courts may rightfully intervene, and where they should in tervene without hesitation, is where legitimate use has degenerated into aburfe where a teacher employed to give secular instruction has violated the constitution by becoming a sectat ian propagandist. That sectarian in struction may be given by the frequent reading, without note or comment, of judiciously selected passages, is, ot course, obvious. A modern philoso pher perhaps the greatest has said that persistent iteration is the most effective means of forcing alien con ceptions upon reluctant minds. Wheth er it is prudent or politic to permit Bible reading in the public schools is a question for the school authorities to determine, but whether the prac tice of Bible reading has taken the form of sectarian instruction in a par ticular case is a question for the courts to determine upon evidence. It cannot be presumed that the law has been violated. The alleged violation mu3t in every Instance he established by competent proof. The value of the common schools as' disseminators of knowledge and social levellers is well understood and justly appreciated, and there is little likelihood that the people will ever permit their useful ness to be impaired by sectarian con troversies. When we consider that this is the first case of its kind ever presented to this court for decision, we feel assured that neither teachers nor school boards have been much in clined to bring discord into the school for the chance of securing by indirec tion a slight sectarian advantage. But if the fact were otherwise, . it could not In any way affect our conclusion. The section of the constitution which provides that 'no sectarian instruc tion shall be allowed in any school or institution supported, in whole or in part, by public funds set apart for educational purposes,' cannot, under any canon of construction with which we are acquainted, be held to mean that neither the Bible, nor any part of it, from Genesis to the Revelation, may be read in the educational institu tions fostered by the. state. We do not wish to be understood as either coun tenancing or discountenancing the reading of the Bible in the public schools. Even where it is an irritant element, the question whether its le gitimate use shall be continued or dis continued is an administrative, and not a judicial question. It belongs to the school authorities, not to the coiirts. The motion for a rehearing is overruled, and the judgment here tofore rendered is adhered to." John Rush's Letter. .- (Copy letter.) BIBLE IX TUB I-M'BI.IC SCHOOLS. Omaha, Sept. 13. To the Kditor of The Bee: We think that when Judge Sulli van's friends have had time to digest his decision in the "Bible case" they will conclude that It would have been better to let the matter alone. If they were his enemies, and were trying to show beyond doubt that he was a lightweight, superficial and inconsis tent, they could not have done better than to publish h!s deliberately-written decision. The respondents in the case thought correctly with the great majority of peo ple of all classes and creeds, that tt-.m original dec-ions of the court implied the exclusion of the Bible from the public schools. The judge says: "The fact that there have been Bible reading and re there have been Bible readings and re schools ever since the present constitu tion was adopted is to be re garded as evidence of the temperate and tolerant spirit of our people, of the waning influence of doctrinal difference, and of a clearer and more general per ception of the cardinal truth that, after all Christianity is greater than creed." Not so. judge. Jt is to be regarded 4 an evidence of the ignorance and indif ference of the people at large, and of the law-breaking practices of hypocrites. Christianity Is greater than creed! Not so. judge. The effect Is never greater than its cause. Besides, the term Chris tianity being abstract, implies the con crete, that is creed, or It means nothing. The judge drags In Catherine de Medici as trying to strengthen the throne by di viding the people. We wonder If the judge throught of the soupers In Ireland, who tried to strengthen the throne in th same way, or of Cromwell and many other such heroes, who figure In history. Vor the sake of change, the judge should have omitted the name of Catherine d Medici. The judge thinks that pos!bly when a man is in a penal reformatory, other