The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-09-08
VII.

L.
AS to the weight of authority in
America there is no question. The only
decision directly holding the practice
of reading the Bible in the public
schools to be unconstitutional is the
Wisconsin case already referred to.
The American Encyclopaedia of Law,
vol. q, p. 775, says: THE practice Of
opening school exercises by reading
from the Scriptures has been attacked
as sectarianism. Generally, however,
the constitutionality of the practice
has been upheld" In Maine, it was
held in Donahoe VS.. Richards, 3S Me-,
319 that a requirement by the supern-
tending committee that the King
James version of the Bible should be
read in the public schools was in viola
tion of no constitutional provision, and
binding upon all members of the
schools, though composed of divers re-
ligious sects.
In Massachusetts it was decided in
Spiller VS.. WOburn, IL Allen, 127, that
the committee might require the
schools to be opened each morning
with reading from the Bible and with
prayer. In Illinois and Nevada a sim
liar view was taken. In Iowa, Moore
VS.. Monroe, GA Iowa, 367. it was held
that a statute providing that the Bible
should not be excluded from the
schools was constitutional. But the
court left the use of the Bible in the
schools to the option of the teachers,
restricted only by the provision that
no pupil should be required to read
1t contrary to the wishes of his par
ents or guardians. In Ohio, in a case
that was argued in the court below
with more learning and more elab-
Orately than any case on the same
question in any other forum (Board of
Education VS.. Minor, 90 Ohio 2lD the
higher court refused to decide the con-
stitutionality of the rule recurring the
Bible to be read in the schools, lodg-
ing the decision of the question in the
board of education, to whom the legis-
lature had committed the exclusive
management of the schools Thus il
will be seen that If the question be-
fore us is to be decided by the weight
of authority. as expressed in the de-
cisions of the various states, there be-
ing only one common pleas case in
Pennsylvania, it must be decided in
favor of the defendants.
The argument suggested by the Iowa
and Ohio cases is worthy Of serious
consideration. The legislature has
committed the management of the
public schools to boards of control or
boards of school directors. In con-
junction with the teachers. they de-
eide what books shall be used in the
schools. Why cannot the question of
reading the Bible in the public schools.
as part of the opening exercises, be
left to them? This is where the ques-
tion has been practically since the
common school system was established
in Pennsylvania. In some schools the
Bible is read; in others II is not. There
Is no law requiring it; there Is no law
prohibiting it, If il is read, the consti-
tuition is not disturbed: II n board
should decide that it shall not be read,
why is not such action within its dis
cretion? We are not deciding the case
at bar upon the basis suggested by
this argument, but we can easily see
how, upon this basis. and upon this
alone. the court of last resort may fin
ally dispose of the question.
Now, therefore, the above case hav-
ing heen fully heard in open court and
argued by counsel it is ordered and
decreed that the bin OF complaint I'm
said case be dismissed at the costs OF
the plaintiffs. and that the Injunction
heretofore granted be dissolved.
II. NJ. Edwards. A. l.. ].