Evening star., 1925-05-31
EVOLUTION TRIAL TO TEST
STATES RICHTTO DICTATE
Power to Control Curriculum of Public
Schools and Where 1t Ends Believed
Issue i'm Tennessee.

its deliberation was whether the law
unreasonably infringes the liberty
guaranteed by the fourteenth amend
ment-"No State shall de-
prive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law"
Supreme Court Ruling.
without doubt" said the courts
opinion, 'it Che amendmenO denotes
not only freedom from bodily restraint
but also the right of the individual to
contract. to engage In any of the COM
mon occupations Of life, to acquire
useful knowledge, to marry, establish
a home and bring up children, to wor-
ship God according to the dictates of
his own conscience, and generally to
enjoy those privileges long recognized
at common law as essential to the or
derly pursuits of happiness by free
man.
THE established doctrine is that
this liberty may not be interfered
with, under the guise of protecting
the public interest, by legislative ac
ton which is arbitrarily or without
some reasonable relation to some pur-
pose within the competency of the
State to effect. Determination by the
Legislature of what constitutes proper
exercise of police power is not final
or conclusive, but Is subject to super
vision by the courts.
THE American people have always
regarded education and acquisition of
knowledge as matters of supreme i'm
portance which should be diligently
promoted. The ordinance Of 1887 de-
clares: Religion, morality and knowl-
edge being necessary to good govern
ment and the happiness of mankind,
col y,6 hn of cd,
shall forever be encouraged Corre-
spending to the right of control, 1t Is
the natural duty of every parent to
give his children education suitable to
their station in life, and nearly
all the States, including Nebraska,
enforce the obligation by compulsory
Rights Must Be Respected.
THAT the State may do much-go
very far. indeed-in order to improve
the quality of it's citizens, physically.
mentally and morally, is clear: but the
individual has certain Fundamental
rights which must be respected. The
protection of the Constitution extends
to all, to those who speak other Ian
guages as well as to those born with
English on the tongue. Perhaps It
would be highly advantageous If all
had reary understanding of our ordi-
nary language, but this cannot be
coerced by methods which conflict
with the Constitutions desirable end
cannot be promoted by prohibited
means"
Justice McReynolds, who delivered
the courts opinion, recalled that
Sparta, to submerge the individual
and develop ideal citizens, assembled
males OF seven years into barracks
and intrusted their subsequent train
ing and education to official guardians
Although such measures have been
deliberately approved by men of
great genius" he continued, their
ideas touching the relation between
individual and state were wholly diff
ferent from those upon which our in
sututions rest; and it hardly will be
affirmed that any legislature could
impose such restrictions upon the
people of a State without doing VIC
lence to both letter and spirit of the
Constitution.
Question of Harm Raised.
The power of the State to compel
attendance at some schools and to
make reasonable regulations for all
schools, including a requirement that
they shall give instruction in Eng.
lish. is not questioned. Nor has chal-
lenge been made of the States power
to prescribe curriculum for institu-
t1ons which it supports. Those mat
ters are not within the present con-
troVersy. Our concern is with the
prohibition approved by the Supreme
court, that mere abuse in
cident to an occupation ordinarily
useful is not enough to Justify its
abolition. although regulation may be
arisen which renders knowledge by a
child of some language other than
English so clearly harmful as to jus
tffy its inhibition, with the consequent
infringement of rights long freely
enjoyed"
So 1t would seem that as the Sill
preme Court has upheld the right of
an individual to conduct a school ar
cord1ng to his own theories and be-
liefs 1t would likewise follow that a
State possesses the same privilege. In
the present case the burden of dis
cusSlng evolution, with all the compli-
cations such discussion necessarily
must involve, lies with the defense.
while the prosecution may restrict it's
argument to the law, pure and sim
pie.
And the children of Tennessee in the
meantime will be learning more about
the theories or evolution than they
would ever have dreamed OF absorb
ing into their systems before. It is
possible. in fact, that hundreds of
Tennessee children-who heretofore
held the opinion that evolution was
bugaboo which caught and ate little
youngsters who didn't go to Sunday
school-will drop that harmless be-
lief and go to work to find out what
it really is.