The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-06-30
M,rning Star and Catholic Messenger.
~~@~~~~S~>>o>~~ >~>-sN~>rs~s">s-~S~->~sS
agw oRI,xAHs, SUNDAY. JUNE %. 1874.


liza Agpsss Of 1Aenas AeafaAes, and Offers.
Isxssses Of Gs FIR. Rsr9 u 4a:g assaad
2--Ossea 4eEIesrneS ind others ogaiast ssme.
Before tks Sspsristssasnt. ..'".,. '-4Tssws t
These, three appeals are all against the
same KeSpondants, and as they anvoNe
but one ana the same question, they may
Conveniently and. properly be considssed
The kespondehs: sc%pese The the Board fSdS Of !
Education of sI0bg Island City, q ooay
created under the provisions Of CHARTER
46ls LaTs OF. aS 'l .sonlEo, Of the public
schools Of Iong Isiand City. ~, i.
TIE eronud 81 appeM'ih al these cases
ia the action Of the Respondents under
Rsa.ie9 " . ssgtsa 1 ~ sas th sir
charge. That provision Is in the follow
shall consist Of the readiag ofea portion OF
the Holy Scriptures without note er com
The Appellants iuthe frst Of the above
entitled cases, who are the Trustees Of the I
First Ward of Long Island city, complain
OF the enforcement, under the direction OF
the Responae nts, Of the provision of the
bylaw above cited, by 'conpelADgs the pn-
oils in the school of the First Ward to be !
present at the reading of the Bible therein,
under penalty Of expulsion from the school
in Gaze of their non attendance at such ]
reading. I. The Appellants allege that the
regulation was directed to be: enforced
against their protest aud that Of many OF
sSs sf ssess s seSoars appsisass
the second appeal complain Of the threat
ened expulsion in some instancee Of their
children from the First Ward school, be-
cause the Appellants forbid their attend
ance upon the religious exercises In Ques-
ton, and In. other. instances they show
that their children wore actually expelled
from that school for refusing, in obedisnce
to the direction Of their parents, to attend
school when the Bible was read. =, II,
The Third appeal is by a resident Of the
Second Ward of Long Island City, who
alleges that his child was expelled from
the school Of that ward for refusing; UDaer
direction of the Appellant, to attend at the
reading Of the Bible therein. .. -.
made to show that the pupil left the scbool
coluntarily, but it is manifest from the cyl
dence ehas the enforcement of tho regula-
ton in question caused his Withdrawal,
and that be was refused permission to re-
main in the school except upon the con-
ments of the rule by attending when the
Bible was read.
The questi1H presented by these cases 10
not a new one in the history of the public
schools Of this State. The claim by Trqs-
tees of the right to enforce the attendance
of pupils in the public schools upon re-
ligious exercises therein, has been ire
auently passed upon in this department by
my predecessors in Office and by myself ;
and it has uniformly been held that NO
such right legally existed.
The following observations, In former
discussion, rendered by me are equallysap-
plicable here:
"The object of the Common School sys.
tenn of this State 10 to afford means o!
secular instruction to all children over five
and under twenty. one years Of age resident
therein. For their religious training tbs
state does not provide, aud with it doe'
not interfere. The advantages OF thu
school are to be free to them all alike. NJ
distinction 10 to be made between Chris
tians, whether Professionals or Romanlsts
and the consciences of none can be legal!
violated. There is no authority IN tn
law to use as a matter of right any portion
of the regular school hours in conductip
any religious exercises at which the ut
tendance of the scholars is made compul
eoIy. On the other hand, there is nothin
to prevent the reading of the Scriptures @
the performance of other religious exercise
by the teacher in the presence of such {
the scholars as may attend voluntarily Q
by the direction of their parents or guard
ans if it be done before the hour fixed ia
the opening of the school or after the dis
missaI Of the school," These principle
were set forth by Secretary Spencer MOI
than thirty years since. In a discussio
made by that able officer In the year 1888
in which he sustained. the action of I'll
Trustees of o School District in permittin
a teacher to have prayers in the school G
condition that they should be had pr
vious to school hours, the following II
marks occur:
"Both parties have rights, the one i
bring up his childaen In the practice
publicly thanking their Creatar for II
other of declining in behalf of their chi
dren the religious services of any persse
in whose creed they may not concur, or Il
other reasons satisfactory to themselve
These rights are reciprocal and should
protected equally and neither should int
fere with the other. Those who desire tn
their children should engage in publ
prayer have no right to compel other CHI
dren to unite in the exercises against t
wishes of their parents.
Neither the Common School systen, n
any other social system can be MAINTAIN tai \
uniees the conscientious views OF all a
ennally respected.. The simple rule 80