prayer which his conscience approves
nd which the natural and the positive
taw guarantee to him, may be Imaossd
upon htm, because In such Institutions
the at at elands In loco p rentes. Tha
Judge eay th penal reformatory, or
other Institution." What other iaatttu
tlona. Judge? Tha State untverstty? The
county houeee? You are very cloudy ana
Indefinite for a. man who la writing a
etate 9pr. So there are possibly aome
place or Inetltution In Nebraska where
the state can. even within the constitu
tion, establish a atate church.
The decision does not. however." says
the Judge, Co to the extent of denying
the right to wee it for the purpose of
Imparting sectarian instruction. -.
learned Judge! Too ought to know that
the moment a, Bible Is ODened In the pub
lic school sectarian Instruction la being
Imparted. Ipso facto. If it Is the King
Jamea version that I used, the reader
then and there decides that th Kin
Jamea version in '"the Bible"' a conten
tlon which in denied and opposed by the
a-reat malorlty of Christiana the world
over. Moreover, the King James version
leaven out certain books which the great
mainritv of Christians the world ever
consider a being part of the Bible,
It leaves them out. as Is notorious, be
cause those who Invented the King Jamea
version affected to regard them as spur
lous. Tour decision renders It lawful for
some teacher to decide ex cathedra for
her pupils what is the Bible. "What Is
the Bible?" Is the previous question. The
aame reasoning would hold good from
the Protestant point of view If some
Catholic teacher were to read the Douay
version. Under our laws the mere read
ing of the Bible In either case would
he sectarianism, pure and simple. Cer
tainly the "Iliad" may be read In the
public schools without Inculcating a be
lief In Olympic divinities, and the Koran
may be read without teaching the Mos
lem faith. But suppose. Judge, that the
people of Nebraska believe In the Olym
pic divinities and that there were two
Iliads, each claiming to be the original
and only true Iliad, and that the people
were divided on the question most earn
estly and sincerely divided? Your parity,
judge, is false and puerile.
Neither you nor the counsel In the
Pennsylvania case seem to khow what
Catholics mean by the Bible. The Cath
olic Bible la not the Douay version all
ly Itself. The Catholic Bible for English
epeaking Catholics is the Douay version
plus the meaning which the Catholic at
taches to it; Just as the law of this
atate la the constitution plus the inter
pretation which the courts place upon It.
Why may not the Bible be also read
without doctrinatlng children In the
creed or dogma of any sect? What a
ellty question for a Judge of the supreme
court of Nebraska to ask! Why? Be
cause, sir, the reading of the Blle In
Schools is a professfon 6f faith in the
gect or demonmlnatlon that stands re
sponsible for the version In question.
You ought to know this fact. Its con
tends are largely historical and moral.
Its language Is unequaled In purity and
elegance. These are reasons here given
-by the Judge that would Jusrifv he read
ing in the schools of some of the vilest
books ever written. To be sure, there
are. according to the Catholic claim,
noted points of difference with respect
to faith and morals between It (King
James" and ' the Douay version. In a
Pennsylvania case the author- of the
cpinion says that he noted over fifty
JTnt of difference between the two ver
Ions. .-itl!S seems to be a revelation to you,
eh learned Judge, but as a rqatter of fact
there are over 600.000 points of difference
between the two versions, not to speak
pf the fundamental difference between
them. "These difference constitute the
basis of some of the peculiarities of faith
and practice that distinguish Catholocism
from Protestanlsm." They do nothing of
the kind. The basis of anything be
lieved in and practiced by Cathol'cs is
found outside to Bible and existed an
teriorly to tha Bible, as a whole. You
not suppose that Catholics are
fools, which their Ignorant critics make
tHem out to be. The New Testament is
merely the mind of the ch'jjc to a cer
tain extent, put down in writing at the
Instigation or Inspiration of God. Cath
olics believe that the Bible, and esepe
dally the New Testament, has no exist
ence or authority independent of the
church, which gave it birth: and to be
lieve the contrary would lead to heresy
and mental disorder.
-But the fact that the King James
translation may be used to Inculcate sec
tarlan doctrines affords no presumption
that it will be so used." You are wrong
again, judge. The fact that the King
James version was never used for any
other purpose than sectarian, from the
time of the souners in Ireland down to
the latest reaoins of it in the schools of
Nebraska, and that under the feelings
and circumstance that obtain In this
stale, cannot be used for any other pur
pose, unless the reader be drunk or in
sane, is a presumption sure and certain
that it will be used in any given case.
In reading these words, quoted from the
Judge, the advocates of Bible reading in
the public sch.wls must have enjoyed a
quiet laugh at the expense of the Judge's
sincerity. It can be presumed that the
Bible will be use! in the public schools
for sectarian purposes, because those who
advocate the reading of U in the schools
are. and always have been, ardent and
unscrupulous nectar la r.s. The law does
rot forbid the use of tha Bible. In either
version. In th. public schools." If the
law forbids sectirtanifm In the public
schools, it certainly forbid. inp'.icltly the
reading of the Bible. Neither you nor
the other Judges, can show how. under
present conditions, the use of the Bible
In the scli-el can le Anything else thin
sectarian. It is not necessary, as you
ought to know, to name a thing in order
to forbid It. The law does not mention
"Nino," or the "Mysteries of Iris." But
will the teacher read these works to the
pupils? In assuming that the Bible can
be read at all 1 the public school In mm
unsec tartan manner, you aim ply beg the
question. Public opinion o4 tha facta
contradict you.
Wo shall ge no farther Into an analy
sis of your unique decision, tha ulterior
purpose of which, apparently, was to
carry water on both shoulders, and mm
1 satisfy the conflicting view of Irrecon
cilable extremes, without reference to
tow or facta. You have heard. Judge, of
the man who araa leading- his aas to the
market te sell, and also yen have heard
the old adage. "Between two toots we'
come to the ground." JOHN Rl'BH.
T. J. Mahoney's Reply to flush.
Omaha. Sept. 15. To the Kdltor of the
World-Herald Having been of counsel
for the relator In the Bible reading ease."
I am of necessity rather familiar with
the legal questions presented and decided
In that case, and am In consequence very
much surprised at the bitter attack or
my friend. John Rush, upon Judge Sulli-
ten rr approved by Judge Sullivan. We
refrained from applying for a modifica
tion of the epmlon simply because It wae
our Judgment. lawyers, that the opin
ion was correct.
Whether the opinion Is right or wrong
te purely legal question; it Is not a
theological question, nor even an ethical
question. The correctness of the decision
depends absolutely upon the constitution
of this state. The Judiciary Is not the
law-making branch of the atate govern
ment, and the court has no right , to leg
islate. Consequently. It -follows-thst. al
though one may believe a decision does
him an Injustice, he is not warranted,
for that reason alone. In condemning the
Judge who rendered It- It Is the duty of
the Judge to announce and administer the
law as It Is written, and not merely as
one may think It ought to have been
written. Consequently, if Judge Sulli
van's decision in the Bible reading case
Is a correct disposition of the legal ques
tion presented, the Judge should be com-
V .
y
x
x
y f
r
'
x
y f
y f
y
r
x
x
x
r
f
Y-
X
V
V
Y-
x
x
x
x
r
X
yr
x
x
x
r
Yr
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
y f
y f
X
X
X
x
yf
T
v-
Y-.
I
Y
X
x
X
x
y '
y '
y r
y r
x
y r
y '
y ''
r
yf
x
y f
y
x
y'
V
Y"
r
r
x
Y
JUDGE SUWVAfl'S SPfKD OF ACCEPTANCE.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I have no
words to adequately express the sense of gratitude and obligation I
feel for the generous treatment I have received at your hands. To
night, more than ever before, am I Impressed with the conviction
that it Is, after all, even from the low standpoint of expediency,
worth while for a public servant to be steadfastly faithful in the ex
ecution of his trust. The action of this convention, and the action
of the populist convention at Orand Island, are expressions of com
mendation and approval that afford me the keenest satisfaction. I
am fully conscious of my own imperfections and shortcomings, and I
realize that if charity were not an element In your judgment my
judicial record would hardly pass muster. I brought to the beriCh
neither wide experience nor broad scholarship, and I lay no special
tress upon nfy Industry, but the one thing of real value that I did
bring to the discharge of my duties the thing above all others that
has contributed most to whatever measure of success I have achiev
ed was independence, absolute judicial independence.
I went onto the bench a free man, and if I continue there I shall
remain free. Having at no time desired a renomination or re-election,
it, has, of course, involved no strain upon virtue to hew steadily
to the line, giving no thought or deed to the flight and fall of the
chips.
Our method of choosing the judiciary is, it seems to me, an un
fortunate one. Geography and partisanship have absolutely nothing
to do with the admlnistraion of the law, and yet, strange as it may
seem, absurd as it Is, these are determining considerations in the
nomination and election of judges. Whatever may be the character
of a judge whether he be weak or strong, he onght to be under no
temptation to count the political consequences of his decisions. He
ought not to feel that his destiny is in the hands of the stout War
wicks who make and unmake postulants for public favor, who ma
nipulate party conventions and produce political results. Courts will
never become ideal arbiters, they will never enjoy full popular confi
dence, until judicial fiber becomes firmer than it Is at present, or un
til a change in our vicious system of selecting the judiciary Is in
some way brought about. It is impossible to overestimate the im
portance of the work committed to the supreme court. It is engaged
not only in the business of deciding controversies between citizens,
but it is moulding the jurisprudence of a state that will In the near
future rank among the-foremost commonwealths of the republic.
To sit in the highest judgment seat is indeed a great honor,
but with the honor goes great responsibility. The reputation of the
state Is to a large extent In the hands of its courts. Every civil
ized corgmunitv is judged by the character of its institutions, and
this community will be judged, in some degree, by the character of
tne judiciary which it is willing to accept.
I have never been well convinced of my own fitness for judicial
service, and as I said before, I have had no wish to continue on the
bench. Nevertheless, I have concluded to abide by your decision and
to accept its consequences. If elected as my own successor, it shall
be my constant and earnest endeavor to raise the character and
reputation 6T the supreme court to a higlier level, and to make it al
together worthy of a distinguished bar and an enlightened people.
The candidate of the republican party is my personal friend. He
is a worthy and generous rival, and I bespeak for him at your
hands fair and courteous treatment. Let the campaign be conducted
on a high plane, in a temperate spirit, and lc accordance with the
humane doctrine that a man does not forfeit his fvil rights and be
come an outlaw by running ior office.
Thj contest this year is important, but not vital. We must not
get excited; we can afford to keep cool. Whatever happens, the"
state will survive, and the democratic party is, of course, indestruct
ible. There is in this state a large body of square-headed men. These
men are not much swayed by mere sentiment. They understand that
in a judicial campaign an appeal to party loyalty is nothing else than
a flap-doodle and clap-trap. In their own good time, . between now
and election, they will think the matter ever, and if they are satis
fled with the supreme court as at present constituted, it is not im
probable that they will conclude, regardless of politics, to let well
enough alone. If we deserve to win, the chances are we will win.
I, for one, have faith in the people. Whatever they do I shall
not murmur. Even though they slay my opponent, still will I trust
them. A little healthy optimism will do us all good.
jy
jy
j y
j
A
A
A
jy
jy
4
A
A
A
A
ji
jy
I
j
j
k
j
J
J
j
JK
A
J
J
J k
J
y
J k
k
J
A
A
j
k
A
A
k
k
k
k
k
k
jy
j
j
k
k
k.
k
j
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
j
A
A
j
k
k
;k
k
A
k
k I
1
k
k
jk
jk
k
k
k
j
k
k
k
k
A
A
A
k
A
k
;k
k
k
k
Jk
jk
k
,u
k
k
jk
k
k
k
k
jk
k
k
k
k
A
r
van. on account of that decision. The
true test of the fitness of a Judge Is his
adherence to the law as It Is, rather than
his advocacy of what one may conceive
the law ought to be. When Judge Sulli
van's opinion was pronounced. In Jan
uary of this year, I was consulted by my
associates In the case upon the propriety
of filing a motion for a rehearing or a
modification of the opinion, notwithstand
ing that the decision gave us all the re
lief we asked for In that case. My asso
ciates and myself went over the decision
carefully, and it was our unanimous
opinion that the conclusions reached by
Judge Sullivan constitute a correct inter
pretation of the provision of our state
constitution forbidding sectarian teach
ing In the public schools, and. as we be
lieved the Judge's conclusions to be right,
we did not ask for a rehearing or for.
modification of the opinion. Our course
in this respect was not dictated by any
regard for Judge Sullivan's re-election,
for even since that time I have not hes
itated to apply for re-hearings in other
cases where- the opinions had been writ-
mended for following the law and not
condemned for omitting to legislate. Now,
the legal question presented in the case
was this: Is the reading of the Bible in
the public schools." In the manner In
which such reading was conducted In the
school In question, such sectarian teach
ing as Is forbidden by the constitution
of this state?
In that case the character and purpose
of the reading was disclosed by the test
imony of the teacher, as follows:
Q. And you read that book as religious
exercises because you think it Is Import
ant for that purpose, don't you?
A. I think it is.
Q. Tes; aad 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 such 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 myself.
Q. And whenever you see fit to read
1 you read?
A. Yes, sir.
Q And you read whatever you see St
to read?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you read from the new
testament and from the old testament,
too?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. And why do you consider It neces
sary to offer a prayer?
A. I think we are taught to.
Q Yes; and you think It is done as an
act of worship the whole thing?
A. We tbink. lt Is. yes. sir.
Q. Intended to worship Ood?
A. Yes, sir.
After quoting the above testimony.
Judge Sullivan says in his opinion:
"It Is said by Commissioner Ames that
the morning exercises, conducted by
Miss Beecher, constituted sectarian In
struction. This conclusion is vigorously'
assailed but in our Judgment It is war
ranted by the evidence, and we adhere
to it."
In other words, when the Bible Is read
as a matter of worship or as an Inspired
book, either for the purpose of imparting
religious instruction or Inciting religious
seal, it amounts to such sectarian in
struction as Is forbidden to be conducted
In the public schools, and the decision
of, Judge Sullivan does not forbid it.
But In order that the decision might
not be misunderstood, it whs manifestly
fitting that the court shouM explain its
limitations, and to that end Judge Sul
livan said:
"The decision does not, however, go to
the extent of entirely excluding the Bible
from the public schools. It goes only to
the extent of denyrng the right to use it
for fhe purpose of imparting sectarian
Instruction. The pith of the opinion Is in
the syllabus, which declares that exer
cises by a teacher in a public school, in
a school building, in school hours and In
the presence of the pupils, consisting of
the reading of passages from the Bible,
and in the singing of songs and hymns,
and offering prayer to the Deity In ac
cordance with the doctrines, beliefs, cus
toms or usages of sectarian churches or
religious organizations, are forbidden by
the constitution of this state.' Certainly
the Iliad may be read In the schools
without inculcating a belief in the Olym
pic divinities, and the Koran may be read
without teaching the Morlem faith. Why
may not the Bible also be read without
indoctrinating "children In the creed or
dogma of any sect. Its contents are
largely historical and moral. Its lan
guage is unequaled in purity and elegance.-
Its style has never been sur
passed. Among the classics of our liter
ature It atands pre-eminent."
This Is part of the opinion chiefly crlt
lcsed by Mr. Rush and he insists that
the parallel is false and puerile. But
why so? If either the Iliad or the Koran
were dally read to pupils of all ages, as
the truth, such reading would unques-
ably instill beliefs In many immature
minds. But if either book is examined
or analysed with a view to Its literary
worth by a class of advanced pupils.
studying literature, so thaj their minds
are directed not to the beliefs contained
In the text, but to the literary merits,
such use of the Iliad or the Koran would
probably produce no results in the way
of theological conviction. So, too, with
the Bible. There Is no doubt that a
teacher may make such use of it as to
amount to sectarian teaching,-and it is
doubtless equally true that with a class
in literature the psalms of David may
be studied for their poetic beauty with
out indulging in dostrinal teaching. Now
the constitution of our state does not
say that the Bible shall, under no cir
cumstances, be read In the public schools.
What the constitution forbids is sectarian
teaching, and what Judge Sullivan de
cided was, that whenever the Bible is so
used that it amounts to, or results In,
sectarian teaching, it is forbidden.
But Mr. Rush says: "You ought to
know that the moment a Bible is opened
in the public school sectarian instruction
is being imparted ipso facto. If it Is the
King James version that Is used, the
reader then and there decides that the
King James version is the Bible a con
tention which is denied and opposed by
the great majority of Christians the
world" over."
You might as well say that the moment
the Koran is opened the reader then and
there decides that it is the Koran, and
that such teaching amounts to sectarian
instruction. It is one thing to eaxmlne
and analyze a writing with a secular ob
ject In view and quite another thing to
read it as a teacher of truth. The former
is not sectarian teaching and Is there
fore not forbidden by the constitution.
The latter would be sectarian teaching,
and. according to the decision of Judge
Sullivan, is forbidden.
Mr. Rush criticises Judge Sullivan's
reference to the Pennsylvania case. In
which the author of the opinion says that
he has noted over fifty points of differ
ence between the Douay and the King
James versions, and Mr. Rush manifests
some chagrin in calling the Judge's at
tention to the fact that there are upwara
of 600.000 po!nts of difference. It should
be remembered that Judge Sullivan was
not called on to decide a theological ques
tion, nor was he called on In any way
to make a pronouncement upon the num
ber of differences in the two versions.
He was simply calling attention to the
fact that there are differences ana used
the reference to the Pennsylvania case
to support his recital of that fact.
Another part of the decision of which
Mr. Rush complains rather bitterly is
found In these words:
"But the fact that the King James ver
sion may be used to inculcate sectarian
doctrines affords no presumption that it
will be so used. The law does not for
bid the use of the Bible, in either ver
sion. In the public schools. It is not pre
scribed' either by the constitution or by
the statutes, and the courts have no
right to declare Us use to be unlawful
because it Is possible or probable that
those who are privileged to use It will
misuse the privilege by attempting te
propoxate their own peculiar theological
or. ecclesiastical views and opinions." ,
This Is but another way of saying that
the courts will not presume that the law
has been violated, but the burden Is al
ways on him who charges the violation
to prove It. This rule of law Is now too
old to be disturbed, no matter whether
Individuals may think the presumption'
reasonable or violent. Mr. Rush's rtnun
for saying that the presumption Is vi
olent. Is, to use his own language, "be
cause those who advocate the reading or
It In the scfitfCts ' are and always tyve
been ardent and unscruplous sectarians."
Here Mr. Rush gives expression r a
sentiment for which he alone should be
held responsible. This Is not the opinion
of his fellow Catholics. We know It to
be a fact that many persons advocate a
reading and study of the Bible who are
not ardent sectarians, and who are not
sectarians at all, and we know, too, that
there are millions of ardent sectarians
who are not unscrupulous.
But Mr. Rush would proscribe the Bible
altogether, because In the lun.lri of a
teacher who wishes to accomplish such a
result If may be made the InKtrument of
sectarian teaching. This reason might be
urged against the teaching of hHtory,
Kngli-h literature, chemistry or astron
omy. It is an argument. If valuable any
where, that ought to be adiJrexd to a
legislature .or n constitutional conven
tions but until the lawmaking branch of
the government shall approve such argu
ment, it has no place either before a
court or before the people In passing'
upon the fitness of a Judge.
To put the whole matter In a nutshell.
Judge Sullivan's opinion Is to the effect
that whenever It can be made to nppeur
that the Bible Is so used In any school
In this state that It amounts to or results
In sectarian teaching. It Is forbidden, but,
otherwise it Is not forbidden. In this hei
has simply enforced the constitutional
restriction without enlarging it. To have
gone fur..ier would have been to lohe
sight of his authority as a Judge and In
vade the province of the legislature. It
Is slncerly to be regretted that a dis
cussion in any way bordering upon sec
tarian or religious differences should be
injected Into a political campaign. There
Is, perhaps, no other subject that has oc
casioned so much bitterness and so much
hatred as religious differences, and It Is
probably natural that. that should be so,
because the ardently religious man looks
upon his religion as much more import
ant than any worldly consideration. He
therefore feels strongly on the subject,
and is apt to express himself with ve
hemence, if not with bitterness. Such
discussions have no legitimate place In
American politics, and whoever Injects
them is assuming a grave responsibility
and accepting the chances of doing great
Wfoilg. T. J. MAHONEY.
Alpha's Criticism.
The Bee.
Omaha. Sept. 16. To the Kditor of the
Bees Doubtlessly the World-Herald and
Mr. Mahoney think they have killed and
discredited John Rush's criticisms or
Judge Sullivan's decision In the "Bible
case." Mr. Mahoney's reply Is before us,
and we must confess we are amazed.
Considering Mr. Mahoney's reputation as
a lawyer, we thought he knew enough
to avoid what even a schoolboy would
know is sophistry. It would appear from
Mr. Mahoney's letter in the World-Herald
this morning that Judge SulUvan
construed the state constitution as really'
excluding any religious use whatever of.
the Bible in the public schools. Judge;
Sullivan, of course, did not ssy this'
clearly and distinctly. He played on the
term "sectarian," and made it proper to'
infer that, according to the Judge there
is a possible religious use of the Bible'
ir. the public schools which Is not "sec
tarian." If the Judge did not mean this'
he has his own Indeflniteness and lo
quacity to blame for the misunderstand
ing. Mr. Mahoney is much clearer and
more satisfactory on this point. Accord
ing to him, the judge, in saying that the
constitution did not entlrelyexclude the
Bible from the public schools, meant that
it could be used there for any other
purpose than religious e. g. as a model
of literature. Even this position could
be properly assailed by Christians, but
it Is possible that no one would have
considered It worth his while to do so.
We think that, . considering our condi
tions, it is impossible to use the Bible In
any of our schools with the indifference
that is shown when one of the classics
is used.
It Is passing strange that while Mr.
Mahoney considers Mr. Rush beside the
point, he goes to the trouble of trying
to refute him. Mr. Rush wrote: "You
ought to know that the moment your
Bible is opened in the public school sec
tarian instruction is being imparted ipso
facto. If it is the King James version
that is used, the reader then' and there
decides that the King James' version Is
the Bible." Mr. Mahoney immediately
tries to discredit this difficulty, but soon
changes his mind and takes refuge lr
the assumption that the judge's decision,
excludes the religious use of the Bible
In the schools and contemplates Its lit
erary use or some other secular use only.
Mr. Mahoney says: "lou might as well
say that the moment the Koran is opened
the reader then and there defides that
it is the Koran and that such leaching
amounts to sectarian instruction." If a
person should open the Koran as a re
ligious act, as Mr. Rush rightly assumes
thje ifcble is opened in the schools, that
persdjp most assuredly would !e deciding
the question of the authenticity, inspira
tion and canonicity of the Koran, an act
which every clear-headed man in the
state knows !s an act of sectarianism
under our constitution. But Mr. Ma
honey clumsily doges. "It i one thing
to examine and analyze a writir.g with a
secular object In view, ind quite another
thing to read it as a teaching of truth. -The
former is not sectarian teaching and
is,, therefore, not forbidden ny the con
stitution. The latter would be sectarian
