The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-08-12
PRICE THREE CENTS.

PRICE THREE CENTS.
which it was enforced against the children
OF the orators in this instance is contrary to
that part of Article III of the Constitution,
| winch declares that no man can "be Justly
deprived or abridged of any civil right as a
citizen on account of his religious senti-
ments or peculiar mode of religious wor-
ship; and that no authority can or ought to
be vested in or assumed by any power
whatever that shall in any case interfere
with or in any manner control the rights of
conscience in the free exercise of religious
worship" Pope Urban ", in the year
1924, 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 great.
est in the Roman Catholic church, and the
day is one on which there is a strict oblga-
ton on members of that church to hear
mass and refrain from servile works The
orators have as perfect a right to keep this
festival as any member of any religious de-
nomination has to worship according to its
usages, except that the constitution enjoins
all sccts and denominations of christians to
observe the Sabbath and no notice is taken
By any law of this state of this festival. And
if 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 keep it has been as
sumed 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 la so far unlawful.
If the rule prohibited the scholars from hear
ing Mass or attending other religious servi-
ces of the Catholic church or otherwise
keeping this festival. and provided for their
exclusion from school if they violated it,
then the committee by making it would as.
sumo to control the free exercise of the
rights of worship, and by enforcing it would
deprive the children of the orators. and
perhaps the orators themselves, of civil
right But the rule does not appear to be
made in reference to any religious worship.
For aught that is shown or claimed the ses-
sions of the school are arranged for the
equal good of all the scholars, and this reg
uation requires punctual and regular at
tendance upon these sessions by all schol-
ars 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 ofthem
by complying with these. This regulation
would not interfere with the worship of the
orators or of their children at all on that
day otherwise than by requiring the pres
cree OF the children at school at the same
time that it was desired elsewhere for wor-.
ship. But such constitutional provisions
as this are not violated by every reqeire-
ment of any person at Il place where he
cannot engage in religious worship as he
desires to, or where it is against his con-
science to be. No one, probably, would
nj tbntn bn had
testant or Catholic in custody on criminal
or civil process would violate such provi-
sions by keeping them away from their
places of worship on Sunday. Courts Of
justice sit ON days regarded by many per-
sons as holy days on which it is against
their consciences TO engage in business, but
such persons have not the legal right to in
sist that their causes which cannot be tried
on such days. Smons VS.. Gratz, 9 Penn
sylvana, 4l2. Nor can such persons law
fully refuse to be sworn as witnesses in
causes being tried on such days Stansbury
VS.. Marks, . Dali. 2l3. Such constitutional
provisions appear to have been adopted to
prevent persecution for any religious senti-
| ments or methods of worship, however dit
ferent from those generally entertained or
practiced, or erroneous in the minds of
others they might be, but not to give to indi-
a
administration of public affairs so as to
make them yield to their religious views or
conscientious scruples. Thurston VS..
Whitney, Cush 104. The question wheth
| er a general rule of school should yield to
the conscientious scruples of scholar or
| the committee might lawfully exclude the
| scholar for not complying with rule
| against such scruples was very fully and
| thoroughly considered in Donahoe pro. ami
vs. Richards ct ais IS Maine $40, before
cited; where the rule required all the schol-
ars to read in version of the Bible that it
was contrary to her religious belle and con-
science to read in. And it is shown very
clearly in the opinion of the court by APP
| pleton j in that case that such scruples
should yield to the regulations of the COM
mittee.
The question here is not whether this reg
ulation is wise or unwse, nor whether it
has been enforced in this instance wisely or
| not, but is whether the committee acted
lawfully within their province or not in en-
forcing it, for if they did, then all questions
Of policy or expediency concerning it were
for them to pass upon and the court of
chancery has no power TO supervise their
| action.
According to these principles the orators
| have a right, common to all the inhabitants
of the district, to send their children to the
schools, just as there provided and reg
ulatcd by complying with the regulations,
and this right they have not been deprived
of, and, as the case now appears, there is
no occasion for granting the injunction
asked.