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
