The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-09-08
WILLIAMS s. r1CANULTY
lao Wy oming.

raised for the support of the public
schools of the commonwealth shall be
appropriated to or used for the sup
port of any sectarian school.
The objections may be thus briefly
stated: % The reading of the Bible in
the public schools is in violation of
the rights of conscience; (2) 1t in
wolves compulsory support of place
of worship, and go, it is sectarian in
structiOn.
We shall only incidentally discuss
the first and second objections. The
first was not strenuously urged upon
us by counsel, although we deem it
worthy of great consideration, and the
second is untenable on any reasonable
ground. The third is the objection
which is the subject Of the most serious
contention. We shall not consider
these objections seriatim. but shall
briefly state some of the general prin-
ciples which underlie and ought to
control the decision of the question
before us in the light Of Pennsylvania
jurisprudence.
1t must be considered that Chris
tianity, which is the religion of the
Bible and the Bible itself occupies a
ulllput lDSlllOl III lllt early anu SuD-
Sequent history of PENNSYLVANIA. In
the year 1900 it was enacted that
whoever shall speak loosely thereof
and profanely of Almighty God, Christ
Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or Scriptures
of Truth. and is thereof legally con-
victed, shall forfeit and pay five
pounds and be imprisoned for five days
in the house of correction"
This law in substance is in force to-
"a inNnlNinp no Dnnli-
cation of this law was before the su-
preme court in 1924, Photograph VS..
Commonwealth, II 5. d s, 1893, it was
then declared that Christianity is part
of the common law of Pennsylvania,
and that to maliciOusly Vilify the
Christian religion is an indictable Of
fence. Justice Duncan says: Chris
tianity was one of the considerations
of the royal charter and the very basis
of its great founder, William Penn;
not Christianity founded on any par
tiCular tenets; not Christianity with
an established church and titles and
spiritual courts, but christianity with
liberty of conscience to all men.
William Penn and Lord Baltimore
We're the first legislators who passed
laws in favor of liberty of conscience,
for before that period the principle OF
liberty of conscience appeared in the
laws of no people, the axiom of no
government, the Institutes of no So
ciety and seriously i'm the temper of
any man. Even the reformers We're as
furious against contumacious errors
as they We're loud in asserting the
liberty of conscience. And to the wilds
of America peopled by a stock cut
off by persecution from Christian
society does Christianity owe true free
dom of religious opinion and religious
worship. Christianity is part
of the common law of this state.
1T is not proclaimed by the COM
manding voice of any human superior
but expressed in the calm and mild
accents Of customary law. Its fOunda-
tions are broad and strong and deep;
they are laid in the authority, the in
terest, the affections of the people"
This broad declaration has been mod
flied in subsequent cases. We shall
only refer to a few of them. In Har-
Justice Gibson uses this language:
"Christianity has been indefinitely
said to be a part of the law of the
land. The law undoubtedly avails it
self of the obligations of Christianity
as instruments to accomplish the pur-
poses of justice. Christianity
is indeed recognized as the predomin-
ant religion of the country, and for
that reason are not only its institu-
tions, but the feelings of its professors
guarded against insult from reviling
or scOffing at it's doctrines: so far IT
is the subject Of special favor. But
further the law does not protect It,"
Again i'm Mohney VS.. Cook GS55), 26
Pa, 342, Justice LOwrie says: "The
declaration that Christianity is part of
the law of the land, is a summary de-
scription of an existing and very OBJ
ViOus condition of our institutions We
are a Christian people, in so far as
we have entered into the spirit of
Christian institutions, and become i'm
bued with the sentiments and princi-
pies of Christianity; and we cannot be
imbued with them, and Yet prevent
them from entering into and influence
ing, more or less, AL our social in
stitutions, customs and relations, as
well as all our individual modes of
thinking and acting.
1T Is involved i'm our social nature,
that even those among us who reject
Christianity cannot possibly get clear
of it's influence or reject those senti-
ments, customs and principles which
ii has spread among the people, so
that, like the air We breathe, they have
become the common stock Of the whole
country, and essential elements of its
life. 1t is perfectly natural, therefore,
that a Christian people should have
laws to protect their day of rest from
desecration. Regarding 1t as a day
necessarily and divinely set apart for
rest from worldly enjoyments and for
the enjoyment of spiritual privileges,
it is simply absurd to suppose that
they would leave II without any leg
islative protection from the disorderly
and the immoral"
Also in Zeisweiss VS.. James QS7O),