Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1874-08-07

school. Further, tardinc,s and irrcguari-
ty In attendance disturb The operations and
hinder the usefulness of Any school wher-
ever they exist, and therefore punctuality
and regularity are essential 10 the we'll be-
ing of the school rs well in respect 10 schol-
ars:who would not as to those who would be
tardy or irregular. The prevention of tar
diness or absence and the promotion of
| punctuality and regularity would ravora-
| bly, affect TIE school itself and the scholars
actually there, aud n regulation that would
accomplish or advance these things would
| be requisite measure for the improve
ment Of the scholars in icauing. As to the
authority of the committee 10 exclude
scholars, Allen j. in Stevenson vs. Hal, If
Barb. 222, said, speaking of trustees who
are similar officers: "Th1 trustees have the
power and It is their duty to dismiss or cx-
clude pupil frotn tic school " hen IN their
judgment 1t is necessary for the good order
and proper government Of the school 50 TO
do" And Shaw ca. J. in Spear vs.. Cum
Inings, % Pick. 227, said: "But il T. asked
what is the remedy Of parents and ouardi-
ans whose children are refused the bcn eft
of schools designed rnr the instruction Of
all. We think if cild Of proper age and
qualifications is rejected by tie ma tcr the
proper course for the parent is 10 appeal to
the committee. II, on their requisilion, the
master should refuse TO accept the pupil.
they would have ample means 10 enforce
their authority by means OF their contract
with the master. If they shall approve
and confirm the &c: or the master We arc to
believe that there il good AID Sufficient
cause for the rejection Of the pupil. The
law will not presume that the committee
who are invested with the power OF super
intendence aud managcmeu, will a., arb-
trarlly and unjustlv Ia a matter submitted
to their judgment"
1t is also urged n argument that the en-
forcement Of this rule for the reasons for
which it was enforced against the children
Of the orators in this instance IL contrary
to that part Of Article III Of the Cinslliu-
ton, which declares that no man can abe
justly deprived or abridged of any civil
right as a citizen on account of his religious
sentiments or peculiar mode OF religious
worship and that no authority can or ought
to be vested in or assumed hy any power
whatever that shall in any case interfere
with or in any manner control the rights
Of conscience in the free exercise Of relig-
ious worship" Pope Urban ", in the
year 1854 appointed Thursday Of the week
after Pentecost for the celebration of the
feast called Corpus Christi. and since then
this festival has been kept as one of the
greatest In the Roman Catholic church. and
the day is one on which there is stri ob.
legation on members Of that church 30 hear
Mass and refrain from servlc works. Tho
orators have rs perfect a right t. keep this
festival aS any member o! any r. iginus
denomination has to worship according To
its usages, except that the constitution en-
Joins all sec's and denominations Of Chris
tians to observe the Sabbath and no notice
is taken by any law Of this Slite Of this |
festival. And il they have been deprived |
or abridged Of any civil right on account of |
keeping this festival, or any authority to
interfere with or control their right to keen |
II has been assumed by the committee, in |
the making and enforcement Of the rule in |
question, as against the orators, then the |
making and enforcement Of the rule is so |
far unlawful. If the rule prohibited the |
scholars from hearing Mass or attending |
other religious services Of the Catholic |
church or otherwise keeping this festival. |
and provided for their exclusion from |
school If they violated II, then the commit |
tee by making 1t would assume to control |
the free exercise Of the rights Of worship, |
and by enforcing it would deprive the chill |
dren of the orators, and Ierhaps the orators
themselves, OF civil right. But he rule |
does not appear to lie made in reference to |
any religious worship. For aughi that is
shown or claimed the sessions Of the school |
are arranged for the equal good Of all the
scholars and this regulation requires pune
tual and regular attendance upon these scs-
siOns by all scholars Of all denominations
alike. The schools are there provided for
all, regulated by general rules applicable
to all, and all are allowed to enjoy equally
the benefits of them by complying with
these rules. This regulation would not in
terlere with the worship of the orators or
Of their children a. all on that dav other
wise than by requiring the presence of the
children at school at the same time that il
was desired elsewhere for worship. But
such constitutional provisions as this are
not violated by every requirement of any
person at place where he cannot engage
in religious worship as he desire, to. or
where it is against his conscience to be.
No one, probably, would claim that an of.
hcer who had either a protestant or caiho-
lie in custody on criminal or civil process
would violate such provisions by keeping
hem away from their places of worship
On Sunday. Courts of justice sit
IN days regarded by many persons
IS holy days on which IL is against
heir consciences to engage in bust
ness, but such persons have not tie legal
right to insist that their causes which can
not be tried without their presence shall
not be tried on such days. Slmons VS..
iratz, Penn. AZ. Nor can such persons
awfully refuse TO be sworn as witnesses i'm
causes being tried on such days. STAINS
bury VS.. Marks, Dali. 2l3. Such consti-
utional provisions appear to have been
adopted TO prevent persecution for any re-
igious sentiments or methods of worship,
however different from those generally en-
ertaned or practeed, or erroneous In the
minds of Others they might be, but not TO
give to individuals any right to control Of |
icers in the administration of public ar
airs so as TO make them yield TO their re-
igiOus views or conscientious scrupIes.
rhurston vs.. Whitney, Cush. IOf. The
question whether general rule of school
mould yield to the conscientious scruples
If a scholar or the committee might lawIul
y exclude the scholar for not complying
with rule against sneh seTuples was very
ully aud thoroughly considered in Don
Ihue pro ami vs.. Richards ct ais. IS Maine
40, before cited where the rule required {