Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1874-08-12

claimed the sessions of the school are ar
RANGED for the equal good of all the schol-
ars. and this regulation requires punctual
and regular attendance upon these sessions
bv all Scholars of all denominations alike.
The schools are there provided for all,
regulated by general rules applicable to
ali and all are allowed to enjoy equally the
benefits of them by complying with these
rules. This regulation would not Interfere
with the worship of the orators or of their
children at all on that day otherwise than
bv recurring the presence of the children
nj school at the same time that it was de-
sired elsewhere for worship. But such
constitutional provisions as this are not
violated by every requirement of any per-
son at place where he cannot engage in
religious worship as he desires to, OF where
| it is against his conscience to be. No one,
probably. would claim that an officer who
had either protestant OF catholic in custo-
DIV ON criminal or civil process would
violate such provisions by keeping them
awav from their places of worship on
Sunday. Courts of justice sit on days re-
carded by many persons as holy days on
which it is against their consciences to en-
gage in business, but such persons have
not the legal right to insist that their causes
which cannot be tried without their pres
ence shall not be tried on such days.
Simons vs. Gratz, 2 Pennsylvania, 412.
Nor can such persons lawfully refuse to be
sworn as witnesses in causes being tried
on such days Stansbury VS.. Marks, 2
Dali, 213.
Such constitutional provisions appear to
have been adopted to prevent persecution
for any religious sentiments or methods OF
worship, however different from those
generally entertained or practiced, OF en-
roneous in the minds of others they might
| be, but not to give to individuals any right
to control officers in the administration of
public affairs so us to make them yield to
their religious views or conscientious
scruples. Thurston vs.. Whitney, 2 Cush.,
| 1O4
| The question whether general rule of
school should yield to the conscientious
scruples of a scholar, or the committee
might lawfully exclude the scholar for not
complying with Il rule against such scru-
Piles. was very fully and thoroughly consid-
| cred in DOnahoe pro ami VS.. Richards eft
ais. SO Maine 397, before cited; where the
rule required all the scholars to read in
version of the Bible that it was contrary
to their religious belief and conscience to
read in And it is shown very clearly in
the opinion of the court by Appleton j. in
that case that such scruples should yield to
the regulations of the committee.
The question here is not whether this
regulation is wise or unwise, 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
enforcing it, for if they did, then all ques
tons of policy or expediency concerning
it were for them to pass upon, and the
court of chancery has no power to super
wise their action.
According to these principles the orators
have Il right, common to al the inhabi
tants Of the district, to send their children
to the schools, just as there provided and
regulated by complying with the regula
tons, and this right they have not been
deprived Of, and. rs the case now appears,
there is no occasion for granting the in
junction asked.