Opinion ID: 1147963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Failure of Proof Respecting Certain Religious Who Were Forever Barred.

Text: It is next urged the decree denies due process of law to a number of appellee teachers as to whom no evidence whatever was introduced before the District Court, namely: Sister M. Genevieve, Sister Mary Jolenta, Sister Mary Severine, Sister M. Alexia, Sister M. Noberta, Sister M. Vicentia, Sister Viridiana, Sister Eulalia, Sister Anthony Louise, Sister Mary Ida, Sister John Ellen, Sister Mary Noel, Sister Michaela, Sister Mary Cyrill and Sister Ann Thomas. It is then said: Under these circumstances, the decree barring such teachers forever from the public schools of New Mexico plainly deprives these teachers of liberty and property without due process of law and of equal protection of the laws of New Mexico. With this statement, insofar as it is supported by the record, we heartily agree, but a painstaking search of the more than 2200 pages of testimony requiring many days of work shows the bald statement is true only in part. We summarize the result of our labor on this point as follows: (a) We find no testimony in the record that Sister Mary Severine, Sister M. Noberta, Sister Vicentia, Sister Anthony Louise or Sister Mary Ida did or did not teach religion in the public schools or elsewhere. (b) There is affirmative testimony that Sister Eulalia taught domestic science at Penasco and did not teach religion. There is no testimony to the contrary. (c) There is affirmative testimony that Sister Michaela went to Tierra Amarilla as a teacher after the teaching of religion in that school had been discontinued, and that she did not teach religion. There is no testimony to the contrary. (d) Sister John Ellen was principal for a time at San Juan School, Rio Arriba County, and later at Mount Carmel School in Socorro, but she was not a defendant and her name is not included in the decree. (e) There is substantial evidence in the record that the remaining teachers taught sectarian religion in the public schools while employed as teachers therein. The writer of either brief could have saved us much time and labor here had he put forth a little effort and given us a summary of the record on the point. Instead, one carelessly stated there was no evidence to sustain the findings as to any named Sister, while the other with as little care entered a general denial. That part of the decree enjoining the Sisters named in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) will be reversed and the lower court is directed to vacate the injunction as to them. It is affirmed as to the remainder.