The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-12-03
the BIDLEI II TRR SCHOOLS.
The Question In the superior Court Ol
Cincinnati.
Argument Of Judge Mathews In Favor
Of Excluding Il.

Argument Of Judge Mathews In Favor
Of Excluding Il.
CINCINNATI, Dec. 2.
The interest In the Bible question be-.
fore the Superior Court In not abatlng.
The citizens are thronglng the Court
room, and the floor and galleries are
Judge Mathews, for the defense, bs.
Ran,his argument yesterday ct noon.
AZ the recess to-day he had spoken four
hours. His argument will consume the
afternoon. Hon. Ruins King will make
the closing argument for the plaintiffs,
probably Tomorrow: THE decision OF the
Court will probably not be rendered for
Two or three weeks.
Judge Mathews took up the hrst two
questions suggested by the Court: First,
whether the reading OF the Bible was
teaching sectarian dogma; and second,
what good II was 10 dispense with the
reading OF the Bible when the Catholics
refused 10 send their children to school
where there was no religious instrnc.
llou.
In answer to the FIRST he said. the res
llglouB instruction as proposed by The
PLAINTIFF was sectarian, The Bible is
read as holy book, q revelation from
Heaven, which is dogma held only
by Protestant ChriAtianH. The Jews
held the New Testament as blaBphemS
ous and the Catholics denied that the
Bible was source Of truth except as
Interpreted by their iniallible church,
Therefore to read the Bible as the plain.
titts propose would be establishing the
dogma held by one sect as the law o!
the State.
In reply 10 the second question he
said he had no doubt Catholics held
precisely the same views that were held
by gentlemen on the other side, that
the State should provide religlousiu-
Btrnction. The now wanted to secular.
lze the schools, and afterwards they
would try to strike a bargain with
those now attempting 10 have
the schools made the vehicle Of
religious instruction. They would say
let us divide the school fund and give
our children the religious instruction
we think is right and you give yours
such as you think right. This would
follow II the decision In this case was
In favor OF the plaintiff. He disclalm.
ed being Catholic, or Jew or inadel.
He was an orthodox CAlvInlst. He
had belief In the divinity OF Christ,
and II asked the ground Of his faith
would not enter into q doubtful argu-
ment, but would say he had felt EVIL
dence OF Chrlst's existence and grace In
his heart: "Aud," he continued: ~
have more than three heavenly wit
nesses, have Eve witnesses before the
throne waiting for me and calling for
me to Join them. This ls my
creed" He continued by saying
that because he was ChriAtIan
he desired TO exercise tho attributes Of
Christ-to be just, 10 be charitable, to
take into the arms OF his human SYM
pathy oil classes OF men. He would
aoRte nothing Ia his belief, but he
would at the same time be maHnani.
nous by not compelling everybody else
70 subscribe TO his creed, He charged
that the ultimate result OF the argu.
mont OF the plaintiff, was that Protest.
ant christianity was the established
religion; that Its teaching was essential
to good government; that because the
church has not power to compel people
TO oattend Its instruction, while the State
has, therefore. the State must exercise
1t.
BE claimed that the School Board
In this matter had used discretion
given II by law and no Court had the
right TO review the exercises Of legal
discretion. He illustrated by auppos-
Ing oAse where the School Board
had omitted to provide for gymnastics
and said the same power existed In
Court to compel the Board to provide
gymnastics as to compel It 10 provide
religious instruction.
Judge Matthews was proceeding 10
say that one Of the members of the
Court had intimated that there was q
class OF persons who were not entitled
to set up the right OF conscience, when
Judge Storer denied making the asser-
ton: A controversy followed and
Judge Matthews took his seat declIn.
Ing 10 speak further. but at the aollcI-
tation OF Counsel and OF Court he re.
sumed his argument referring to case
In Second Howard Vidal Us. executors
OF GIrard and case In Second Har-
ringtOn.