The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1870-02-17

THE BIBLE IN THE SCHOOLS.
The Decision In the Cincinnati Case
1.-THE Two Sides of the Question.

ID NNlCLlIIuLII vi tllC CtLsC lINOlNbIIS AIlG
use of the Bible in the public schools, rem
dcrcd Tuesday. The Board Of Education
for the city had passed resolutions 10 pro.
hibit the reading Of the Bible In the
schools, and certain parties applied for an
Injunction to restrain the operation Of
these resolutions. Each of tic three
Judges, Hagans, Storcr and Tat, read an
opinion, the whole occupying over three
hours. Judges HagNns and StOrer, con-
CURED in sustaining the injunction. Judge
TAFT dissentCd. The following arc the
points Of the opinions read by Judges
ITagans and Tan, representing both sides
of the question.
OPINION OF JUDGE IIAGANs, SUSTAINING
THE USE OF THE BIBLE IN TIE SCHOOLS.
The argument ut the trial of the case
took very wide range, and embodied
topics supposed to them to bear upon the
questions ut issue. Counsel confused the
differences between seCts and sCclarian'
ism on the one hand, and Christians and
Christianity on the other. The plaintiffs
discussed the first resolution and tho de-
PENDANTS the second, but not with any
idea OF abandoning either Of them. The
first question TINT presents itself Is,
whether the court has power to hear the
case and grant the relief demanded? Is
this a case for tic equitable interference Of
the court? That depends on the prOpOSi-
ton that is within the simple principles OF
equitable jurisprudence in this class Of
cases. It must be shown that the action
Of the Board WINS either done in the ub-
scncc Of authority, or, II they had authOri'
ty, that it was abused and Is therefore un-
lawful and void. 1t wNs objected 10 the
power Of the court that under the code an
Injunction is u command to refrain from u
particular act; and that when the resOlu-
lions were passed, the old rules Of the
Board were repealed and the new ones
promulgated, and TINT, therefore, we must
either make new rules or revise the old
ones, which would bG rather the Office Of Il
mandamlB. But the plcNdings demand
no affirmative relief, nor is this a case for
u mandatory injunction, so tLNt the court
holds that If the case is within any prfn.
Ciple Of equitable Jurisprudence, they
have the power TO grant the relief, and
the defendants were subject 10 It's CXer-
else.
Had the Board power topass the rcsO.
luton complained off Is its action pro.
hibitcd, or has Its power boon abused 7
These arc vital inquiries. The defendants
cited Bloom q. Richard, second Ohio
State, 3S7, and MCGctrich rS. WassOn,
fourth Ohio State, 571, in which the Su-
prone Court held tlat neither Clristiani-
ty or any other system Of religion was
part of the law Of Ohio. Besides the oh
lection that this was Glitter dictH, and that
the Court overlooked the intimatiOns In
previous cases; ii Is sufficient 10 say that II
the plcadingS were being frImcd with Il
view TO mandatory relief, these two CilSes
have not application. The common schools
Of Cincinnati are In operation under the
constitution Of 1851 The seventh section
Of the bill Of rights provides that religion,
morality and knowledge being essential to
good government, il shall be the duty Of
the General Assembly to pass suitable
laws to protect every denomination In the
peaccable enjoyment Of its own worship,
and 10 encourage schools and the means
of instruction. The Legislature has no
where defined the purpose of the common
schools, has not prescribed the textbooks
nor anything relating to the alministr1I'
ton Of the system. II Is claimed that
whatever the Board may choose 10 omit
in reference to conducting the exercises OF
the schools, and the course Of study has
been left 10 their discretion, though ii
might be constitutional for the legislature
to make the requirements Of the old rule
in pursuance Of the duty enjOined upon
them, it being lcll to the discretion Of the
BOartl; that therefore to grant the relief
would be to usUrp the functions of the
School Board and that the difficulty can
only be reached by the periodical election
Of school trustees, But the legislature has
passed special laws, md the propositions
assume That the Board may do what the
legislature cannot do: that We are remit
ted 10 the constitution, for neither the
legislature nor the i5OHrll can determine
this question. ......
4 wide difference existed between cOnn.
sci us 10 the meaning Of the resolutions,
hut they resolved themselves into prOhi-
bitiOn Of religious instruction. In con.
sidering the case, it does not matter
whether the Board had ever before pro-
vidcd for any religious instruction or not,
and We cannot in this c;Ise try the vitality
of tic old rule. 4 great part Of the NrgU.
mcnt related 10 the truth or t;llsity Of the
Christian religion and the authority Of the
Holy Scriptures, and lnS no force, nor can
those questions lie authnritativGly decided
in n Court of Justice. The Constitution Of
Ohio provides for ample protection TO those
who believe in Almighty God and to those
who do not, and for freedom Of conscience
TO ALL We hnye no religious establish.
mcnt. These provisions are Tor the scCu.
ritv Of the individual. Then follows the
provision above quoted. The cOnstitU.
ton thus provides two means for the pro.
motion Of religion, morality and knOwl.
edge: first, the word Of every religious
denomination is protected, md this fur.
nishcs II clue to the religion and morality
Of tho constitution, and it is true that in
the pulpits and on the platforms Of all
sccts every question Of religion, morals,
science, literature, art, politics, and whit
not have been freely discussed and taught,
and thus these instrumentalitics have sub
served the purposes Of the Government
and cOnscrvNtOrs Of the public morals and
agents for the diffusion Of knowledge.
Our statute books have on them lcgislN-
ton for the protection Of religiousdcnomi.
nation IN pursuance Of that requirement
Of the constitution; and second, encourages
schools and the means Of instruction, and
provides for athorough!gstcm.Of common
schools.
1t Is objected TINT natural religion Is
enough for the purposes Of the State, and
tthat jcalousiGs Nnd violations Of the con.
science for which the Constitution pro.
vilcs no ample protection will follow the
introduction Of religious instruction in the