Year: 1861

1t is within the recollection of most cf our
readers that during the past year, the question
of making the reading of the Bible prescribed
daily exercise, in our Common Schools, has
been discussed in various parts of the State
and that the adverse decision of the Board of
Educa ion sustained and enforced by the able
arguments of its excellent Secretary has met
with some very violent opposition. This op-
position eliminated in the introduction of a
bill into the Senate, instructing Prudential Com
mttees to require the Reading of the Bible in
Schools in our Common English version. A
motion was made to strike out the word ere
qure" and to insert the word "recommend,"
whereupon the bill and PROFOUND amendment
were debated at length.


The Hon. +. +. Woodbridge, than whom
there was not in the Senate nor is there in the
State a more enlightened, safe, and judicious
legislator, made a speech in opposition to the
bill which was not and, in our opinion, cannot
he, answered. 1t is able clear and convincing
1t is perhaps rather late in the day TO repro
duce that speech, but the importance of the
subject and the general interest it has excited
throughout most parts of the State, lead us to
believe that our readers will be gratifed in its
careful perusal. We commend it to the atten-
ton of every one interested in the welfare of
our schools and in educational progress:


Senator Woodbridge said he should vote
against the passage of this BILL and in so doing
he was desirous Of placing himself right on the
record before his brother Senators and his con-
sttuents.


The bill in its present form was, perhaps, as
harmless as it could be framed 1t was as lit
tie Gictatory and binding in its expressions as
possible. Yet he should vote against it, be.
cause he deemed it unwise to adopt any legisla-
ton that tends to control, or refer to, this
special matter lie preferred, with the board
Of education, to leave this to the good sense
the solid principle, the sound. practical morali-
ty, of the people of Vermont We never have
had law Of this kind upon our statute books,
and yet there are few district schools in our
state where there has not been religious teach
| ing.


We find, sir in other states, where legislation
has been had upon this matter, that it has
proved unfortunate in its results. 1t has eX-
cited question the most bitter, the most vim
dicative, the most liable to be carried on in a
spirit of partzanship, of any question which
| can COME OClOrc Tue puOIC ullHu. Inc uCtlOn
| of the board, in not recommending its use, has
been referred to- They decline to recommend
it as reader, and with propriety to my mind,
as it is not fit book for teaching reading in
| primary schools. They decline to recommend
it as a devotional exercise, as they prefer to
leave the question of its use in this respect, to
the good sense of the people. There is great
force and cogency in the argument used by our
respected secretary of the board, in answering
the communication of school superintendent
on this subject lawyer, sir, would hesitate
long before giving the opinion that you can com.
pei any child, in this state, to read any partcu-
lar version of the bible


Sir, we are protestant people, but as a gov
ernment we are neither protestantnor Romanist
We are simply a political organization. That
organization may be based upon religious trnth
but not upon any distinctive religious sect
federation is involved in the very idea of
Republic.


The Mohammedan has the same right to come
here and erect his Mosque and worship hi,
Prophet as we have to erect our churches and
worship the True and Living God. The Catho
lie has the same right to read the Douay version
of the bible and teach it to his children as
have to read the English version and teach it tc
mine.


This, sir, not being a government of any
|
science being guaranteed to every man, wha
right have we TO say that particular version o
the bible should be read as devotional exercis,
by pupils in our schools?


The bill does not 60 as far as that | admit
1t now only says that it shall be the duty o
the Prudential Committee to recommend it
daily reading, The duty to recommend make
it imperative upon them to do so. That rec
ommendation is imperative upon the teacher
The word recommend is practically just wha
the word "may" means in our statutes, which
the supreme court decides to mean "shall
This recommendation would, in reality, make i
incumbent upon the teacher to enforce sucl
reading. Now, sir, what is the result of thi
upon the schools? We, as a free government
have opened all our institutions to every nutiol
OF the earth. The Romanist, the Mussulman
men OF all religious sects, coming here ant
meeting upon common ground on com
mon level have insured to them the right
of conscience, and the right to educate thei
children in the way that they see fit. Now, sir
the adoption by legislative recommendation o
a measure of this kind, would result in clan
nishness and sectarianism. Take Oxford il
England for example il is one Of the expo
nents of the Episcopal church, a church whic
reverence, although do not belong to il,
arrogates to itself that perfection which the
say can only arise from the reading of prayer
. Now, sir, pass this act and although l wou


not claim what the extent of the effect woul
be, yet so far as it may have any effect at all,
will have the direct influence to excite spiri
of sectarianism among the people of our state
G There are many of the Romanists in our land
: They have their churches and their religion
: teachers, and they are protected in the exercs
of their rights of conscience and their religion
! worship. But they would enjoy our school,
Shall they do itp 1t is certainly in accordanc
r with our institutions that they have that priv