The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-03
TIE BIBLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Tho Controversy In acknowledgements Of
Counsel for the Defence.

Counsel for the Defence.
CINCINNATI, Dec. Q, 1869.
Tho interest in the Bible question before the
Supreme Court docs not abate. Citizens throng the
court room and the door and galleries crowded.
Judge Matthews, for the Defence began an argu.
ment yesterday, and at the noon recess to-day he
had spoken four hours. His argument Will consume
the afternoon. Rufus King will make the closing
argument for the plaintiff probably tomorrow. The
decision OF the Court will probably not be rendered
for two or three weeks. Judge Matthews took
up the first question suggested by the Court.
First whether the reading Of the Bible was teach
ing sectarian dogma; and second, what good 1t
was to dispense with reading the Bible when
Catholics refused to send their children to school
where there was no religious instruction In answer
to the first he sald:-Relgous instruction, as pro-
posed by the plaintiffs, was sectaran. The Bible was
read as holy book OF revelation from Heaven,
which is dogma held only by Protestant Christians;
the Jews held the New Testament to be Dlasphemous,
and Catholics denied that the Bible is the source OF
truth except as interpreted by their infaliibe
Church; therefore, to read the Bible IN the way the
plaintiffs propose would be TO establish o dogma
held by one sect law OF the state. In reply to
the second question, he SAID he had no doubt the
Catholics held precisely the same views that were
held by the gentlemen on the other side that the
state should provide religious instruction. They
now wanted to secularlze schools; afterwards they
would try to strike bargain with those
now attempting W HdNc WIG scnoOi Hhuc
vehicle OF religious instruction. They would
say, let divide the school fund, aud
give children the religious instruction we think
Is right and you give yours. This would follow IL
the decision In this In favor OF the PLAIN
tifYs He dsclnimed being q Catholic or Jew or
inide. He was an orthodox Calvinlst. lie had be.
lief in the divinity OF Christ, and asked the ground
of his faith would not enter into d. ubtful argument
but say he had felt evidence OF Cnrlsts existence
and grace In his heart. And, he continued, nave
more than three heavenly witnesses; nave I'VE
witnesses before the Throne waiting Tor me anu call
ing for me 10 JOIN them. THIS IL my creeu. ne
concluded by saying that because he was a Cnrs-
tian he desired exercise the attributes Of christ
to be Just TO charitable to take into the arms or
his human sympathy oil classes OF men. lie would
abate nothing OF his belief, but ne would at
the same time Ue magnanlmous by not competing
charged that the ultimate result o. the argument OF
the plaintiff was that Protestant Cnrstlanlty was an
established religion; that It's teachings were essential
to good government; that because the Cnurch has
NOS the power compel people 10 attend It's nslruc
tiOns while tho state has, therefore the State must
exercise It He claimed that the School Board IN
this matter used tho discretion given by law,
and no court had right to review the exercise OF
legal discretion. He Illustrated this by supposng
case where school board had omitted TO provide
for gymnastics. There was as much reason for COM
pelinQ them to provide for gymnastics as for COM
polling them to provide for religious instruction.
Judge Matthews was proceeding TO say that one OF
the members pi the court had minated that there
persons who were not entitled to set up right
OF conscience
Judge Storer denied making such an assertion.
controversy followed. Judge Matthews took his
ton OF counsel and OF the Court he resumed mis- argu
ment, referring TO the case In Second Howard,
yideaii ys. the Executors Of tue Guard estate In
Second HARRINGTON