OFFICIA.!^ DONATION. 
 
DKCISION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SUPREME COURT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 STATE OF WISCONSIN 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 WinffflftlielleinPiiicSclioiik 
 
 OI»IN"ION"S BY 
 
 Justices LYON, CASSODAY AND ORTON, 
 
 1S90. 
 
 „ ., ^ ,^ ^ , ? ' 5 ^ } 1 ^ ) 1 
 
 MADISON, WISCONSIN: 
 
 DEMOCRAT PRINTING COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS^ 
 1890, 
 
c t <- ' 
 
 C c L c C C ( 
 
 » « 
 
THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
 
 :ii 
 
 Office of State Superintendent, 
 
 Madison, Wis., April 15, 1890. 
 
 The decision of the supreme court of the state of Wisconsin, 
 declaring the reading of the Bible in public schools to be sec- 
 tarian instruction, to be an act of worship, and a practice 
 of uniting the functions of church and state, and therefore 
 contrary to the inhibitions of the constitution of the state 
 upon those points, was rendered too late to be included in 
 any form in the school code recently published, and issued 
 from this office. 
 
 The wide-spread mterest on the subject, and in the specific 
 grounds upon which the decision is based, as well as the 
 direct bearing it has upon the practices of a large number 
 of public schools, seems to call for measures to give all 
 concerned exact and correct information concerning the 
 matter. 
 
 This circular is therefore issued, containing the full text 
 of each of the opinions delivered by the three justices of the 
 court who wrote opinions. No dissenting opinion was filed 
 or expressed, and the decision was therefore concurred in 
 by all judges. 
 
 J. B. Thayer, 
 
 State Superintendent, 
 
The State of Wisconsin ex eel., Frederick Weiss^ 
 W. H. MoRRiSEY, Thomas Mooney, James McBride^ 
 J. C. Burns and John Corbett, 
 
 Appellants^ 
 
 vs. 
 
 District Board of School District ISTo. Eight of the 
 
 City of Edgerton, 
 
 Respondent, 
 
 OPmiON BY JUSTICE WILLIAM P. LYON. 
 
 The relators filed their petition in the circuit court of 
 Rock county, praying that a writ of mandamus issue to the 
 district board of school district ISTo. 8, of the city of Edger- 
 ton in said county, commanding said board to cause the 
 teachers in the public schools of that district to discontinue 
 the practice, which had theretofore prevailed, of reading 
 therein selections from the Bible. The petition is as 
 follows: 
 
 ^' The petition of Frederick Weiss, W. H. Morrisey, 
 Thomas Mooney, James McBride, J. C. Burns and John 
 Corbett respectfully shows unto this court that your peti- 
 tioners are, and for many years last past have been, resi- 
 dents and tax payers of the city of Edgerton, in Rock 
 county, Wisconsin; that there are in said city of Edgerton 
 kept and maintained in accordance with, and in pursuance 
 of the revised statutes of said state of Wisconsin, certain 
 free common schools; that the residents of said city 
 of Edgerton who are taxed for the support of said 
 schools, are equally entitled to the benefits thereof by 
 having their children instructed therein according to 
 law; that your petitioners are parents of children, which 
 children they are desirous of having educated in said 
 schools; that said children of your petitioners, respectively, 
 to-wit: Annie Mooney, Ettie Weiss, Thomas Burns, ISTora 
 Corbett, Bessie Corbett, Katie Corbett, Annie McBride, 
 Jane McBride and James McBride are pupils of, and 
 attend said schools for the purpose of receiving instruction. 
 
 " Your petitioners further show that certain of the teach- 
 ers employed by the district board having charge of said 
 schools to conduct the same and instruct the pupils attend- 
 
ing said schools, read to said pupils, and among them the 
 children of your petitioners above named, each and every 
 day when said schools are in session and during the hours 
 fixed for the instruction of pupils, certain portions of the 
 book commonly known as the Bible, said teachers them- 
 selves selecting the portions so read, and uniformly using 
 in such reading the translation of said Bible known as the 
 King James version; that such reading as above set forth 
 was and is a custom followed by certain of said teachers 
 in said schools. 
 
 '' Your petitioners further show that they and many others 
 of the residents and tax payers of said city and school-dis- 
 trict, whose children attend said schools, and are under the 
 control and are instructed by the teachers above named, 
 and who are lawfully entitled to the equal benefits of said 
 schools, are together with their said children members of 
 the Roman Catholic church, and conscientiously believe its 
 doctrines, faith and forms of worship, and that by said 
 church the version of the scriptures referred to in this peti- 
 tion is taught, and believed to be, incorrect as a transla- 
 tion, and incomplete by reason of the omission of a part 
 of the books held by such church to be integral por- 
 tions of the Inspired Canon, and it is further taught by the 
 said Roman Catholic church and believed by its members, 
 that the scriptures ought not to be read indiscriminately, 
 inasmuch as said church has divine authority as the only 
 infallible teacher and interpreter of the same, and that the 
 reading of the same without note or comment, and with- 
 out being expounded by the only authorized teachers and 
 interpreters thereof, is not only not beneficial to the child- 
 ren in said schools, and especially to the above named 
 children of your petitioners who are members of said 
 church, but likely to lead to the adoption of dangerous er- 
 rors, irreligious faith, practice and worship, and that by rea- 
 son thereof, the practice of reading the King James ver- 
 sion of the Bible, commonly and only received as inspired 
 and true by the Protestant" religious sects, is regarded by 
 the members of said Roman Catholic church, among whom 
 are your petitioners, as contrary to the rights of conscience 
 and as wholly contrary to, and in violation of, the law, and 
 that your petitioners believe such exercises as are above 
 set forth, and each and all of them, to be sectarian instruc- 
 tion, and in violation of section 3, article X. of the consti- 
 tution of the state of Wisconsin. 
 
 " Your petitioners further show that they, with others of 
 said residents and tax payers of said city and school-dis- 
 trict, have petitioned and requested said board having the 
 control and management of said schools, to interfere as they 
 lawfully might and should do, and to direct said teachers 
 to discontinue the unlawful and wrongful practices and ex- 
 ercises above set forth, and to confine the instruction to be 
 given by such teachers to the studies and branches of 
 
6 
 
 knowledge lawfully provided for the said pupils, but that 
 said board has wholly neglected and refused, and still does 
 wholly neglect and refuse, to in any way interfere in said 
 matter, and has, and does wholly refuse to perform the du- 
 ties legally devolving upon it, and has, and does now permit 
 said above mentioned exercises to be carried on as above 
 set forth. 
 
 ^' Wherefore your petitioners pray that a writ of manda- 
 mus may issue from said court to said district board, com- 
 manding said board to cause said teachers to discontinue 
 the practices and exercises above set forth/' 
 
 Upon such petition, an alternative writ of mandamus was 
 issued and served, to which the district board made return 
 as follows: 
 
 " The answer of the district board of school-district num- 
 ber eight, of the city of Edgerton, to the amended alternative 
 writ of mandamus issued by the circuit court for Rock 
 county in the above entitled action. 
 
 '' The district board of school district number eight of the 
 city of Edgerton, for return and answer to the amended 
 alternative writ of mandamus issued in the above entitled 
 action, admit that the said Frederick Weiss, W. H. Morri- 
 sey, Thomas Mooney, James McBride, J. C. Burns and John 
 Corbett, are, and for many years have been, residents and 
 tax payers of the city of Edgerton; that there is in said 
 city of Edgerton, kept and maintained in accordance 
 with, and in pursuance of the statutes of the state of 
 Wisconsin, a free common school; that the residents of 
 the city of Edgerton taxed for the support of said school, 
 and having children to be instructed therein, are en- 
 titled to the benefits of such school; that the petition- 
 ers, Frederick Weiss, Thomas Mooney, James McBride, 
 J. C. Burns and John Corbett, are parents of children which 
 they are desirous of having educated in said school; that 
 the children named in said amended alternative writ, are 
 pupils of and attend said school, for the purpose of receiv- 
 ing instruction therein. 
 
 "The said district board further answering the allega- 
 tions of said amended alternative writ, admits that two of 
 the teachers employed by said district board, and having 
 charge of two of the departments in said school, did, prior 
 to the filing of this petition of the relators of this action, 
 read to the pupils in their departments, daily when said 
 school was in session, portions of the book known as the 
 Bible; that said teachers selected the portions of the Bible 
 so read by them; that these selections so read were made 
 from the translation of the Bible known as the King James 
 version, and that some of the children whose names are set 
 forth in the said amended alternative writ, attended and 
 received instruction in the department of said school in 
 which said selections from the Bible were so read; but said 
 board allege that the children of said petitioners were not. 
 
and are not required to remain in said school during the 
 reading of such portions of the Bible, but are at liberty to 
 withdraw during such reading, if they desire so to do. 
 
 '' The said district board, further answering the allega- 
 tons of said alternative writ, deny that selections from the 
 Bible were read by all of the teachers in said school, or that 
 such selections were read in all the departments of said 
 school. 
 
 "The said district board, further answering the allega- 
 tions of said amended alternative writ, admit that the pe- 
 titioners above named, together with the children in said 
 alternative writ named, were, and are members of tha 
 Roman Catholic church; that they believe in the doctrines, 
 faith and forms of worship of the Roman Catholic church, 
 and that by said Roman Catholic church the translation of 
 the Bible known as the King James version is believed to 
 be incorrect as a translation, and incomplete by reason of 
 the omission of certain books held by said church to be in- 
 tegral portions of the Inspired Canon. 
 
 ''The said district board, further answering the allega- 
 tions of said amended alternative writ, admits that it is 
 taught by said Roman Catholic church, and believed by 
 some of its members, that the Scriptures ought not to h& 
 read indiscriminately; that said Roman Catholic church has 
 divine authority as the only infallible teacher and interpre- 
 ter of the Scriptures, and that the reading of the same 
 without note or comment, and without being expounded by 
 the only authorized teacher and interpreter thereof, is not 
 only not beneficial to children, but likely to lead to the 
 adoption of dangerous errors, irreligious faith, practice and 
 worship, and that by reason thereof, the practice of read- 
 ing the King James version of the Bible is regarded by 
 some of the members of the Roman Catholic church, and 
 by the petitioners above named, as contrary to the rights 
 of conscience, and as contrary to, and in violation of law, 
 and that the petitioners above named believe that the read- 
 ing of the King James version of the Bible as set forth in 
 said amended alternative writ, to be sectarian instruction, 
 and in violation of section 3, article X. of the constitution 
 of the state of Wisconsin. 
 
 _ ''But said district board, further answering the allega- 
 tions of said amended alternative writ, upon information 
 and belief, deny that the Roman Catholic church is the 
 only infallible teacher, or interpreter of the Bible, but on 
 the contrary, said board allege, upon information and be- 
 lief, that every person has the right to read the Bible, and 
 interpret it for himself; that the claim of the relators in 
 that regard is sectarian, and that an enforcement thereof 
 would be a violation of the constitution of this state. 
 
 "The said district board, upon information and belief, 
 further deny that the reading of selections from the King 
 James version of the Bible, as alleged in said alternative 
 
8 
 
 writ, is contrary to the rights of conscience or in violation 
 oi law, or that the same is sectarian instruction, or in vio- 
 lation of section 8, of article X. of the constitution of this 
 state, or of any provision or requirement of said constitu- 
 tion, or of the statutes or the common law of this state, 
 and the said board, upon information and belief, deny that 
 the reading of such selections from the Bible by some of 
 the teachers in said school, in some of the departments 
 thereof, as the same were in fact read, was contrary to, or 
 in violation of law, or that the same was or is sectarian 
 instruction, or that the same was or is in violation of sec- 
 tion 3 of article X. of the constitution of this state, or that 
 the same was or is in violation of any provision or re- 
 quirement of the constitution or the statutes, or the com- 
 mon law of this state. 
 
 '' The said district board, further answering the allega- 
 tions of said amended alternative writ, admits that they 
 have permitted, and now do permit some of the teachers in 
 some of the departments of said school to read, without 
 comment, selections made by such teachers from the King 
 James version of the Bible, and said board, upon informa- 
 tion and belief, allege that they have the lawful right to 
 permit such selections to be made and read by some of said 
 teachers, in some of the departments of said school. 
 
 •^^ The said district board, further answering the allega- 
 tions of said amended alternative writ, upon information 
 and belief, allege that they have no lawful right, or au- 
 thority, to require the teachers in said school to discontinue 
 the reading of selections from the Bible in said school, and 
 that therefore they ought not, and can not, lawfully require 
 said teachers to discontinue the reading of selections from 
 the Bible, in some of the departments in said school. 
 
 '^ II. The said district board, for a further answer and re- 
 turn to the allegations of the amended alternative writ, 
 issued by said court in this action, admit that the petition- 
 ers named in said writ, with their children, are members of 
 the Roman Catholic church, and that they believe that the 
 translation of the Bible known as the King James version, 
 is incorrect as a translation, and incomplete by reason of 
 the omission of a portion of the books held by the Roman 
 Catholic church to be integral portions of the Inspired 
 Canon; but the said district board, upon information and 
 belief, allege that the said Roman Catholic church do also 
 believe and teach, that the translation of the Bible known 
 as the Douay and Rheims version, and commonly called the 
 Douay version, is correct and complete; that said church, 
 and the members thereof, constantly use said Douay ver- 
 -sion in the worship conducted in and by said church, and 
 said board, upon information and belief, allege that said 
 translation of said Bible known as the King James version 
 <5ontains no book, or part of book, not contained in the 
 translation known as the Douay version; that the King 
 
9 
 
 James version and the Douay version are different transla- 
 tions of the same Bible; that there is no material difference 
 in said translation; that while the selections from the Bible 
 read by the teachers in the school of said district, were read 
 from the King James version, the portions and passages so 
 read are contained in the Douay version, and were not, and 
 are not, materially different from the translation of the 
 same portions and passages of the Bible in the Douay ver- 
 sion used by said Roman Catholic church. 
 
 "The said district board, upon information and belief, 
 further show that the following are the only portions of 
 said Bible so selected by the said teachers in said school 
 and read therein, and that the same were read from the 
 Xing James version of said Bible/^ 
 
 Quotations from the Scriptures are inserted in the answer 
 consisting of the 1, 15, 19, 23, 24, 27, 37, 46, 100, 121, 125th 
 Psalms; the 1, 3, 13, 16 and 20th verses of chapter 15, of the 
 Book of Proverbs; the 16, 20 and 22d chapter of Proverbs; 
 the second chapter of Matthew; the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
 10, 11, 12 and 13th verses of the 5th chapter of Matthew; 
 the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16th verses 
 of the 6th chapter of Matthew; the 13th chapter of Mat- 
 thew; the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 
 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28th verses of the 25th 
 chapter of Matthew; the first 14 verses of the 11th chapter 
 of Luke; the first 28 verses of the 19th chapter of Luke; the 
 first 5 verses of the 21st chapter of Luke; the 4, 5, 6, 7 and 
 8th verses of the 14th chapter of Romans, and the 13th 
 chapter of 1st Corinthians. 
 
 The answer then proceeds as follows: 
 
 "This said district board, upon information and belief, 
 further allege that the portions of the Bible above set forth 
 and so selected by said teachers and read in said schools as 
 aforesaid, were not and are not sectarian; that the reading 
 of those portions of tlie Bible above set forth was not and 
 is not sectarian instruction; that the reading of the por- 
 tions of the Bible above set forth was not and is not con- 
 trary to the rights of conscience, nor in violation of section 
 3, of article X. of the constitution, or the statutes, or the 
 common law of this state, and that said section 3, of article 
 X.^ of the constitution, was not intended by the people of 
 said state, when said constitution was adopted, to prohibit 
 the reading of the Bible in the schools of said state, and 
 does not prohibit the reading of the Bible in such schools. 
 
 " III. The said district board for a further answer and 
 return to the amended alternative writ issued by said court 
 in this action, respectfully shows, that prior to," and at the 
 time of, the filing of the petition of the relators in this ac- 
 tion, said school-district number eight was duly formed 
 and organized as a school-district under and in pursuance 
 of the laws of this state; that prior to the time of the filing 
 of said petition, the said school-district owned and main- 
 
10 
 
 tained a school-house in said district; that prior to the time 
 of filing such petition, a school with different departments 
 therein was maintained and taught in said school-house un- 
 der the direction of said district board, and that such school 
 was being maintained and taught in said school-house at 
 the time of the filing of the petition of the relators herein. 
 
 ^'The said district board further show that prior to the 
 time of filing said petition, the district board of said school- 
 district had the right and authority to determine what 
 school and text-books should be used in the several 
 branches of study pursued in the school of said district; 
 that prior to the filing of said petition, the said district 
 board, in pursuance of their authority, decided and de- 
 termined what school and text-bodl:s should be used in the 
 school in said district, and made a list of such books, and 
 adopted the same as the books to be used in said district in 
 the manner required by law; that such list was and!*is as 
 follows:" Here follows a list of such text-books, one of 
 which is the Bible. 
 
 The return then goes on to its close as follows: 
 
 ''The said district board further show that the transla- 
 tion of the Bible selected and included in said list of text and 
 school books, and adopted by said board, was and is the ver- 
 sion thereof known as the King James version, and that the 
 readers so selected and included in said list, and adopted by 
 said board, contain many selections from the King James 
 version of the Bible. 
 
 "The said district board further show that said King 
 James version of the Bible was so selected by said board 
 and included in said list of text-books and adopted by said 
 board for the purpose of being used in the general educa- 
 tion of the scholars attending said school, and not for sec- 
 tarian instruction. 
 
 " The said district board further show that when a list of 
 text-books has been made by it, that it is by the statutes of 
 this state prohibited in making any changes in said list 
 for the term of three years; that it cannot make any change 
 in said list until after the expiration of three years, without 
 the consent of the state superintendent, and that three 
 years have not elapsed since said list of text-books was so 
 made by said district board. 
 
 " The said district board, upon information and belief, 
 further show that prior to the time of the reading of the 
 Bible in the school of said district and prior to the adoption 
 of said list of text-books by said district board as aforesaid, 
 the superintendent ,of public instruction in said state of 
 Wisconsin recommended for adoption and use in the schools 
 of said state a list of text-books; that in such list of text- 
 books so recommended by said state superintendent, and as 
 a part thereof, is the King James translation of the Bible, 
 and that such recommendation has not been in any way 
 revoked or withdrawn, but still remains in full force. 
 
11 
 
 " The said district board, for a further return and answer 
 to the amended alternative writ issued in this action, allege 
 that said school-district was, long prior to the reading of 
 the Bible as mentioned in the petition of the relators, duly 
 formed and organized as a school-district under and in 
 pursuance of the statutes of this state; that the members 
 of said district board were duly elected and qualified as re- 
 quired by law; that as members of such board, they entered 
 upon the discharge of their duties, and the performance of 
 the trusts reposed in them as members of such board; that 
 the school in said district is established and maintained for 
 the benefit and advantage of all of the children residing in 
 said district between the ages of four and twenty years;, 
 that there are residing in said school-district in addition to 
 the children named in the petition of the relators, about 
 five hundred children, a small proportion of whom are chil- 
 dfen of Catholic parents, or members of the Roman Catho- 
 lic church, but nearly all of whom are children of Protestant 
 parents; that such school is established and maintained for 
 the purpose of giving and securing to all of the children 
 within the ages aforesaid residing in said district as com- 
 plete an education as the educational facilities of said dis- 
 ^trict will permit; that it is the duty of said district board 
 to so maintain, conduct and control said school that every 
 child within the ages aforesaid residing in said district 
 shall have the advantage of every educational facility that 
 may be afforded by said school; that the Bible is an impor- 
 tant text-book in said school; that there is no book known 
 to said board that can be used as a text-book in said school 
 which will take the place of the Bible in said schools; that 
 the reading of the Bible to the children attending said 
 schools, at suitable and proper times, is an important part 
 in the education of the children attending said school; 
 that the parents of the children in said district, with the 
 exception of the petitioners and a very few others, desire 
 that the King James translation of the Bible be used as a 
 text-book in said schools; that the reading of the Bible in 
 said school is not in any way sectarian instruction in said 
 school, and is not in any way prohibited by the constitution 
 or the laws of this state. 
 
 " And the said board, upon information and belief, further 
 allege that it is the duty of said board to require said Bible 
 to be used in said school as a text-book at suitable and 
 proper times, when the use thereof will aid in the education 
 of the children attending said school, and that said board 
 has no right to prohibit, and should not attempt to prohibit, 
 the use of the Bible in said school at proper and suitable 
 times, when such use will aid in making more complete the 
 education of the children attending said school, and said 
 board submits that, for the reasons above set forth, they 
 ought not to discontinue the use of the Bible in the school 
 
12 
 
 of said district, and that they have no right nor authority 
 to discontinue such use of the Bible in said school. 
 
 '' Wherefore, said board pray the judgment of this court 
 denying the prayer of the petition of the relators, and that 
 said board recover their costs and disbursements in this 
 action/' 
 
 The petitioners interposed a general demurrer to such 
 answer and return, and the same was overruled by the 
 court, and the petitioners appealed to this court from the 
 order overruling such demurrer. 
 
 Lyon, J. The petitioners are residents and tax payers of 
 the city of Edgerton, and their children are pupils in the 
 j)ublic schools of that city. They allege in their petition 
 that certain of the teachers employed by the district board 
 having charge of such schools, read daily to the pupils 
 therein, during school hours, certain portions of King 
 James version of the Bible selected by the teachers; and 
 that the petitioners have requested the district board to re- 
 quire the teachers to discontinue such practice, but the 
 board refuses to do so. The petitioners further allege that 
 such practice is a violation of certain provisions of the 
 constitution of this state, hereinafter more particularly 
 mentioned, and pray that a writ of mandamus may issue 
 from the circuit court to the school board commanding such 
 board to cause the teachers to discontinue the practice and 
 exercises complained of. 
 
 Upon the filing of such petition in the circuit court;, the 
 usual alternative writ of mandamus was issued and served 
 upon the school board. The board made return to such 
 writ by filing an answer to the petition, admitting: the ex- 
 istence of the practice complained of, and the refusal of 
 the board to cause it to be discontinued, denying the au- 
 thority of the board to interfere with the practice, and al- 
 leging that the practice is legal and proper, and that the 
 Bible is a duly authorized and selected text-book for use in 
 said schools. 
 
 Further statement of the contents of the petition and 
 answer is hereinafter made. 
 
 The petitioners demurred to the answer of the school 
 board alleging as ground of demurrer that the answer fails 
 to state facts showing that a peremptory writ of mandamus, 
 as prayed, should not issue. The circuit court overruled the 
 demurrer, and the petitioners appeal to this court from the 
 order in that behalf. 
 
 The questions which must be adjudicated on this appeal 
 liave been argued by the respective counsel with great 
 ability, and with all the earnestness of intense personal 
 conviction. The arguments, and the opinion of the learned 
 circuit judge overruling the demurrer to the answer of the 
 respondent, show great learning and historical research. 
 
13 
 
 and have been valuable to us in our deliberations upon the^ 
 case. 
 
 The constitutional objections urged by the petitioners to 
 the reading of the Bible in the district schools are that, 
 1. It violates the rights of conscience. 2. It compels 
 them to aid in the support .of a place of worship against 
 their consent. [Sec. 18, Art. I. Const.]. 3. It is sectarian 
 instruction. [Art. X. sec. 3.] 
 
 This opinion will be confined quite closely to a discussion 
 of the question, whether the adoption of the Protestant or 
 King James version of the Bible, or any version thereof, in 
 the public schools in the city of Edgerton, as a text-book, 
 and the reading of selections therefrom in those schools at 
 the times, and in the manner stated in the answer, is sec- 
 tarian instruction within the meaning of that term as used 
 in sec. 3, Art. X. of the constitution, which ordains that no 
 sectarian instruction shall be allowed in the district schools 
 of this state. 
 
 1. Some questions as to the effect of the demurrer upon 
 certain allegations in the answer of the respondent to the 
 petition for a writ of mandamus, will first be considered. 
 It is a familiar rule that a demurrer to any pleading reaches 
 back through the whole record, and seizes hold of the first 
 defective pleading. In this case the petition for a writ of 
 mandamus, and the answer of the school board thereto, 
 constitute the pleadings. Hence, if the petition is insuffi- 
 cient, judgment on the demurrer to the answer should go 
 for the respondent, although the answer may also be insuf- 
 ficient. This rule is invoked by the learned counsel for the 
 respondent. 
 
 It best comports with the gravity and importance of the 
 case to fully consider and determine it upon the merits, to 
 the end that the controversy which has grown out of the 
 practice complained of be put at rest in this state. Hence, 
 no narrow or technical construction of the pleadings should 
 prevail which will defect or postpone a final adjustment of 
 the controversy. 
 
 The petitioners are members of the Roman Catholic 
 church, and believers in its doctrines. Hence, it is quite 
 natural that most of the averments in their petition should 
 be made, as they in fact are, from the stand-point of such 
 doctrines. But should it be held that members of that 
 church have no valid grounds, as such, for their objections 
 to the reading of the Bible in the district schools, still the 
 petition contains general averments sufficiently broad to 
 cover any valid objection to such reading, which might be 
 made by any citizen of the state aggrieved by the action of 
 the school board. These averments are: " That the resi- 
 dents of said city of Edgerton who are taxed for the sup- 
 port of said schools are equally entitled to the benefits 
 thereof, by having their children instructed therein accord- 
 ing to law,'' and that such reading of the Bible *' fs contrary- 
 
u 
 
 to the rights of conscience, and wholly contrary to and in 
 violation of the law, and that your petitioners believe such 
 -exercises as above set forth, and each and all of them, are 
 sectarian instruction, and in violation of section 3, article 
 X. of the constitution of the state of Wisconsin/' 
 
 The answer contains several averments which counsel 
 claim are admitted by the demurrer, but which are mere 
 legal conclusions from facts stated therein; such as that 
 the reading of the Bible in schools is not sectarian instruc- 
 tion, or that the school board have lawful rights to permit, 
 and none to prevent such reading of the same. Averments 
 of this kind, or of facts not well pleaded, are not admitted 
 by a general deniurrer to the pleading. 6 Am. and Eng. 
 Ency. of Law, 531, and cases cited in note 6. 
 
 It is averred in the return that there is no material differ- 
 ence between the King James version of the Bible used in 
 the Edgerton schools, and the Douay version, which is the 
 only one recognized by the Catholic church as correct and 
 complete. It is universally known that there are differ- 
 ences between these two versions in many particulars, 
 which the respective sects regard as material. Hence, the 
 averment is against common knowledge, and therefore not 
 well pleaded. 
 
 Our conclusion is that if such reading of the Bible is sec- 
 tarian instruction, or if it violates any other constitutional 
 right of any citizen or sect, the petition is sufficient. 
 
 2. In considering whether such reading of the Bible is 
 sectarian instruction, the book will be regarded as a whole, 
 because the whole Bible, without exception, has been desig- 
 nated as a text-book for use in the Edgerton schools, and 
 the claim of the school board is substantially (although per- 
 haps not in terms) that the whole contents thereof may 
 lawfully be so read cherein, if the teachers so elect. This 
 being so, it is quite immaterial if the portions thereof set 
 out in the return as the only portions thus far read, are not 
 sectarian. Yet it should be observed that some of the por- 
 tions so read seem to inculcate the doctrines of the divinity 
 of Jesus Christ, and the punishment of the wicked after 
 death, which doctrines are not accepted by some religious 
 sects. 
 
 3. The courts will take judicial notice of the contents of 
 the Bible; that the religious world is divided into numerous 
 sects; and of the general doctrines maintained by each sect, 
 for these things pertain to general history and may fairly 
 be presumed to be subjects of common knowledge. 1 
 Greenl. Ev. §§ 5, 6 and notes. Thus they will take cogniz- 
 ance, without averment, of the facts that there are numer- 
 ous religious sects, called Christians, respectively maintain- 
 ing different and conflicting doctrines; that some of these 
 believe the doctrine of predestination, while others do not; 
 some, the doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked, 
 while others repudiate it; some, the doctrines of the Apos- 
 
15 
 
 tolic succession, and the authority of the priesthood, while 
 others reject both; some, that the Holy Scriptures are the 
 only sufficient rule of faith and practice, while others be- 
 lieve that the only safe guide to human thought, opinion 
 and action, is the illuminating power of the Divine Spirit upon 
 the humble and devout heart; some in the necessity and 
 efficacy of the sacraments of the church, while others re- 
 ject them entirely; and some in the literal truth of the 
 Scriptures, while others believe them to be allegorical, teach- 
 ing spiritual truths alone or chiefly. The courts will also 
 take cognizance of numerous other conflicts of doctrines be- 
 tween the sects; also, that there are religious sects which 
 reject the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, among which 
 is the Hebrew, or Jewish sect, which denies the inspiration 
 and authority of the New Testament; and, further, that the 
 sect known as the Latter Day Saints, or Mormons, while 
 accepting the Bible, is reputed to believe the Book of Mor- 
 mon, and the delivery of its own alleged prophets, to be of 
 equal authority therewith. Many, if not most, of the above 
 sects, include within their membership, citizens of Wiscon- 
 sin. A great majority, if not all of them, base their peculiar 
 doctrines upon various passages of Scripture which may 
 reasonably be understood as supporting the same. 
 
 It should here be said that the term " religious sect '' is 
 understood as applying to people believing in the same re- 
 ligious doctrines, who are more or less closely associated 
 or organized to advance such doctrines, and increase the 
 number of believers therein. The doctrines of one of these 
 sects which are not common to all the others, are sectarian, 
 and the term " sectarian '' is, we think, used in that sense 
 in the constitution. 
 
 4. Counsel for the school board maintain in their argu- 
 ment that the Christian religion is part of the common law 
 of England; that the same was brought to this country by 
 the colonists, and, by virtue of the various colonial char- 
 ters, was embodied in the fundamental laws of the colo- 
 nies; that this religious element, or principle, was incorpo- 
 rated in the various state constitutions, and in the 
 Ordinance of 1787, for the government of the North West 
 Territory, by virtue of which ordinance it became the fun- 
 damental law of the territory of Wisconsin. Numerous 
 quotations are given by him from the above documents, 
 from the utterances of Congress and legislatures, and from 
 the writings of our early statesmen, to prove these propo- 
 sitions. That the learned counsel have fairly demonstrated 
 their accuracy is freely conceded. More than that, counsel 
 have proved that many, probably most of those charters, 
 and some of the state constitutions, not only ordained and 
 enforced some of the principles of the Christian religion, 
 but sectarian doctrines as well. 
 
 They have also attempted, at considerable length, to 
 show that the Church of Kome is hostile to our common 
 
16 
 
 school system. This court neither affirms nor denies the 
 accuracy of this position. Moreover, counsel on both sides 
 have argued to some extent, as to whether certain religious 
 dogmas are true or false. 
 
 None of these matters are material or pertinent to the 
 questions to be determined on this appeal. This case must 
 be decided under the constitution and laws of this state 
 now in force, and it is entirely immaterial to the decision 
 thereof, whether the interference of the courts to compel a 
 faithful execution of the law by school boards is invoked 
 by those who are hostile or friendly to our common school 
 system. The question is, what is the law of the case? not, 
 what opinions are entertained by those who demand its en- 
 forcement? It is scarcely necessary to add that we have 
 no concern with the truth or error of the doctrines of any 
 sect. We are only concerned to know whether instruction 
 in sectarian doctrines has been or, under existing regula- 
 tions, is liable to be given in the district schools of the 
 state, and especially in the public schools of the city of 
 Edgerton. 
 
 5. We come now to the more direct consideration of the 
 merits of the controversy. The term '^sectarian instruc- 
 tion " in the constitution manifestly refers exclusively to 
 instruction in religious doctrines, and the prohibition is 
 only aimed at such instruction as is sectarian. That is to 
 say, instruction in religious doctrines which are believed by 
 some religious sects and rejected by others. Hence, to 
 teach the existence of a supreme being, of infinite wisdom, 
 power and goodness, and that it is the highest duty of all 
 men to adore, obey and love him, is not sectarian, because 
 all religious sects so believe and teach. The instruction* be- 
 comes sectarian when it goes further, and inculcates doc- 
 trine or dogma concerning which the religious sects are in 
 conflict. This we understand to be the meaning of the 
 constitutional prohibition. 
 
 That the reading from the Bible in the schools, although 
 unaccompanied by any comment on the part of the teacher, 
 is '* instruction^' seems to us too clear for argument. Some 
 of the most valuable instruction a person can receive may 
 be derived from reading alone, without any extrinsic aid 
 by way of comment or exposition. The question, there- 
 fore, seems to narrow down tb this: Is the reading of the 
 Bible in the schools — not merely selected passages there- 
 from, but the whole of it — sectarian instruction of the 
 pupils? In view of the fact already mentioned, that the 
 Bible contains numerous doctrinal passages, upon some of 
 which the peculiar creed of almost every religious sect is 
 based, and that such passages may reasonably be under- 
 stood to inculcate the doctrines predicated upon them, an 
 affirmative answer to the question seems unavoidable. Any 
 pupil of ordinary intelligence who listens to the reading of 
 the doctrinal portion of the Bible, will be more or less in- 
 
structed thereby in the doctrines of the divinity of Jesus 
 Christ, the eternal punishment of the wicked, the authority 
 of the priesthood, the binding- force and efficacy of the sac- 
 raments, and many other conflicting sectarian doctrines. 
 A most forcible demonstration of the accuracy of this 
 statement is found in certain reports of the American Bible 
 Society of its work in Catholic countries (referred to in one 
 of the arguments), in which instances are given of the con- 
 version of several persons from "Romanism" through the 
 reading of the Scriptures alone. That is to say, the read- 
 ing of the Protestant or King James version of the Bible 
 converted Catholics to Protestants without the aid of com- 
 ment or exposition. In those cases, the reading of the 
 Bible certainly was sectarian instruction. We do not know 
 how to frame an argument in support of the proposition 
 that the reading thereof in the district schools is not also 
 sectarian instruction. 
 
 It should be observed in this connection that the above 
 views do not, as counsel seemed to think they may, banish 
 from the district schools such text-books as are founded 
 upon the fundamental teaching of the Bible, or which con- 
 tain extracts therefrom. Such teachings and extracts per- 
 vade and ornament our secular literature, and are important 
 elements in its value and usefulness. Such text-books are 
 n the schools for secular instruction, and rightly so, and the 
 constitutional prohibition of sectarian instruction does not 
 include them, even though they may contain passages from 
 which some inferences of sectarian doctrine might possibly 
 be drawn. 
 
 Furthermore, there is much in the Bible which cannot 
 justly be characterized as sectarian. There can be no valid 
 objection to the use of such matter in the secular instruc- 
 tion of the pupils. Much of it has great historical and lit- 
 erary value which may be thus utilized without violating^ 
 the constitutional prohibition. It may also be used to in- 
 culcate good morals — that is, our duties to each other — 
 which may and ought to be inculcated by the district 
 schools. No more complete code of morals exists than is 
 contained in the N'ew Testament, which re-affirms and em- 
 phasizes the moral obligations laid down in the Ten Com- 
 mandments. Concerning the fundamental principles of 
 moral ethics, the religious sects do not disagree. 
 
 6. It is urged on behalf of the school board that the con- 
 stitution must be interpreted in the light of the surround- 
 ing circumstances existing when it was framed and adopted, 
 and that cotemporaneous exposition thereof is of great 
 authority. Cases in this court and elsewhere are cited to 
 these propositions. Undoubtedly they are correct rules of 
 interpretation, applicable alike to constitutions, statutes, 
 and all written instruments, where the language employed 
 is of uncertain import. But if the words of the instrument 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 are unambiguous, there is no room for construction outside 
 the words themselves, and the above rules cease to be con- 
 trolling or important. It is proper, however, to consider 
 the constitutional prohibition in the light of such rules of 
 interpretation. 
 
 On the subject of cotemporaneous exposition, counsel 
 refer us to the uniform action of the department of public 
 instruction in this state, from 1858 to the present time, 
 recommending the Bible as a text-book in the district 
 schools, as evidence that the constitutional provision under 
 consideration was not understood by the framers of that 
 instrument, or the people who adopted it, as excluding from 
 such schools the reading of the Bible. The action of that 
 department upon the subject, showing as it does the opin- 
 ions of the eminent scholars and teachers who have pre- 
 sided over it for a long series of years, is entitled to great 
 weight, and on a doubtful question of construction would 
 doubtless be held controlling. But we do not think the 
 true interpretation of the constitutional provision under 
 consideration is doubtful or uncertain, or that any ex- 
 traneous aid is required in order to interpret it correctly. 
 Hence our judgment cannot properly be controlled by the 
 action of the department of public instruction, or the opin- 
 ions of its learned chiefs. The fact probably is that the 
 practice of Bible reading in the district schools was not 
 seriously challenged at the outset, and not subjected to 
 close legal scrutiny until the policy of the department had 
 become fixed. It was but natural that such i)olicy should, 
 to some extent at least, be thereafter adhered to. 
 
 It is further said that the practice of reading: the Bible in 
 the district schools prevailed generally after the adoption 
 of the constitution. This is claimed to be a most persuasive 
 fact showing that it was not the intention of the framers of 
 the constitution and the people, to prohibit the practice. 
 We do not know how the fact was, but we must be per- 
 mitted to doubt whether the practice was ever a general 
 one in the district schools of the state. We are quite con- 
 fident that it is not so at the present time. It was said in 
 argument, and not denied, that the practice does not pre- 
 vail in the public schools in any of the larger cities in the 
 state. But were the fact otherwise, for the reasons above 
 stated it would not be controlling. 
 
 It may not be uninstructive to consider somewhat cer- 
 tain other circumstances existing when the constitution 
 was adopted, which may fairly be presumed to have in- 
 fiuenced the inserting therein of the provision against " sec- 
 tarian instruction '' in the district schools. 
 
 The early settlers of Wisconsin came chiefly from New 
 England and the Middle states. They represented the best 
 religious, intellectual and moral culture, and the business 
 enterprise and sagacity of the people of the states from 
 
19 
 
 whence they came. They found here a territory possessing 
 all the elements essential to the development of a great 
 state. They were intensely desirous that the future state 
 should be settled and developed as rapidly as possible. 
 They chose from their number wise, sagacious, Christian 
 men, imbued with the sentiments common to all, to frame 
 their constitution. 
 
 The convention assembled at a time when immigration had 
 become very large and was constantly increasing. The im- 
 migrants came from nearly all the countries of Europe, but 
 most largely from Germany and Ireland. As a class, they 
 were industrious, intelligent, honest and thrifty, just the ma- 
 terial for the development of a new state. Besides, they 
 brought with them, collectively, much wealth. They were 
 also religious and sectarian. Among them were Catholics, 
 Jews, and adherents of many Protestant sects. These im- 
 migrants were cordially welcomed, and it is manifest the 
 convention framed the constitution with reference to attract- 
 ing them to Wisconsin. 
 
 Many, perhaps most, of these immigrants came frorn 
 countries in which a state religion was maintained and en- 
 forced, while some of them were non-conformists, and had 
 suffered under the disabilities resulting from their rejection 
 of the established religion. What more tempting induce- 
 ment to cast their lot with us could have been held out to 
 them, than the assurance that in addition to the guaranties 
 of the right of conscience and of worship in their own way, 
 the free district schools in which their children were to be, 
 or might be educated, were absolute common ground where 
 the pupils were equal, and where sectarian instruction, and 
 with it sectarian intolerance, under which they had smarted 
 in the old country, could never enter. 
 
 Such were the circumstances surrounding the convention 
 which framed the constitution. In the light of them, and 
 with a lively appreciation by its members of the horrors of 
 sectarian intolerance, and the priceless value of perfect 
 religious and sectarian freedom and equality, is it unreason- 
 able to say that sectarian instruction was thus excluded to 
 the end that the child of the Jew, or Catholic, or Unitarian, 
 or Universalist, or Quaker, should not be compelled to listen 
 to the stated reading of passages of Scripture, which ^re 
 accepted by others as giving the lie to the religious faith 
 and belief of their parents and themselves? 
 
 It is argued that the reading of the Bible in the district 
 schools is not included in the constitutional prohibition of 
 sectarian instruction therein, because the Bible is not spe- 
 cifically mentioned in the constitution. It is said that if it 
 was intended that such reading was to be excluded, it 
 would have been so provided in direct terms. The argu- 
 ment may be plausible, but it is believed to be unsound. 
 Constitutions deal with general principles and policies, and 
 
20 
 
 do not usually descend to a specification of particulars. 
 Such is the character of the provision in question. In gen- 
 eral terms, it excludes sectarian instruction, and the exclu- 
 sion includes all forms of such instruction. Its force 
 would, or might have been weakened had the attempt been 
 made to specify therein all the methods by which such in- 
 struction may be imparted. 
 
 We have a statute upon this general subject which must 
 not be overlooked. Section 3, chapter 251, laws of 1883, 
 amending section 514, revised statutes, provides that in 
 cities " no text-books shall be permitted in any free public 
 school which will have a tendency to inculcate sectarian 
 ideas." Of course this applies to the public schools of the 
 city of Edgerton. This statute certainly emphasizes the 
 constitutional prohibition, although it may not extend its 
 scope. It is, in effect, a legislative declaration that the use 
 of text-books which have a tendency to inculcate sectarian 
 ideas is sectarian instruction, prohibited by the constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 For the reasons above stated, we cannot doubt that the 
 use of the Bible as a text-book in the public schools, and 
 the stated reading thereof in such schools, without restric- 
 tion, '^ has a tendency to inculcate sectarian ideas " and is 
 sectarian instruction, within the meaning and intention of 
 the constitution and the statute. 
 
 7. The answer of the respondent states that the relators^ 
 children are not compelled to remain in the school room 
 while the Bible is being read, but are at liberty to withdraw 
 therefrom during the reading of the same. For this reason, 
 it is claimed that the relators have no good cause for com- 
 plaint, even though such reading be sectarian instruction. 
 We can not give our sanction to this position. When, as> 
 in this case, a small minority of the pupils in the public 
 school is excluded for any cause from a stated school exer- 
 cise, particularly when such cause is apparent hostility to 
 the Bible, which a majority of the pupils have been taught 
 to revere, from that moment the excluded pupil loses caste 
 with his fellows and is liable to be regarded with aversion, 
 and subjected to reproach and insult. But it is a sufficient 
 refutation of the argument that the practice in question 
 tends to destroy the equality of the pupils, which the con- 
 stitution seeks to establish and protect, and puts a portion 
 of them to serious disadvantage in many ways with respect 
 to the others. 
 
 8. The foregoing views render unnecessary any ex~ 
 tended discussion of the question whether such reading of 
 the Bible is or may be a violation of the rights of con- 
 science, guaranteed by sec. 18 of the Bill of Rights [Art. I. 
 Const.]. There has been considerable discussion concern- 
 ing the limitations of that right. That there are limitations 
 thereto must be conceded. For example: A Mormon 
 
21 
 
 may believe that the practice of polygamy is a religious 
 duty, yet no court would regard his conscience in that be- 
 half for a moment, should he put his belief into practice. 
 
 The petition alleges that, in addition to their objections 
 to the King James version, the relators have conscientious 
 scruples against the reading of any version of the Bible to 
 their children, either in the district schools or elsewhere, 
 without authoritative note, comment or exposition, because 
 the practice may lead their children to adopt dangerous 
 errors, and irreligious faith, practice and worship. When 
 we remember that wise and good men have struggled and 
 agonized through the centuries to find the correct inter- 
 pretation of the Scriptures, employing to that end all the 
 resources of great intellectual power, profound scholar- 
 ship and exalted spiritual attainment, and yet with such 
 widely diverged results; and further, that the relators con- 
 scientiously believe that their church furnishes them means, 
 and the only means, of correct and mf allible interpretation, 
 we can scarcely say their conscientious scruples against 
 the reading of any version of the Bible to their children, 
 unaccompanied by such interpretation, are entitled to no 
 consideration. 
 
 But however this may be, it may safely be said, and 
 nothing further need be said upon the subject, that when a 
 man's conscience coincides with the law, and he obeys its 
 dictates, he will be protected. 
 
 9. Whether the reading of the Bible in the public schools 
 is religious worship, and whether it constitutes the school- 
 house for the time being a place of worship, and, if so, 
 whether such reading during school hours as a school ex- 
 ercise against the consent of a tax payer compels him to 
 support a place of worship, within the meaning of sec. 18, 
 of the Bill of Rights, are questions which will not be here 
 discussed. These questions are considered in an opinion 
 by Mr. Justice Cassoday filed herewith. 
 
 10. A number of cases in different states, supposed to 
 have a bearing upon the main question here considered and 
 determined, have been cited, and quotations made there- 
 from at considerable length by the respective counsel, and 
 by the circuit judge in his elaborate opinion overruling the 
 dernurrer to the answer. N^one of the states in which those 
 decisions were made seem to have in their constitutions a 
 direct prohibition of sectarian instruction in the public 
 schools. It is believed that this state is the first which ex- 
 pressly embodied the prohibition in its fundamental law, 
 and we are not aware of any direct adjudication of the 
 question under consideration by any court previously to 
 Judge Bennett's decision in this case, except (as we are in- 
 formed) the late Judge Stewart decided in some case before 
 him in the circuit court of Sauk county (but at what time 
 we are not advised), that the constitution prohibits the read- 
 
22 
 
 ing of the Bible in the district schools. Practically, there- 
 fore, we are now determining a question of first impression, 
 and it must necessarily be determined upon general prin- 
 ciples of law. Cases from which only mere inferences, 
 more or less remote, can be deduced, afford but little aid to 
 correct judgment in this case. Hence, the cases cited have 
 not been specially referred to in this opinion. Some of 
 them are nearer in point on the question considered by Mr. 
 Justice Cassoday, and he has referred to and commented 
 upon them in his opinion. 
 
 11. The drift of some remarks in the argument of coun- 
 sel for the respondent, and perhaps, also in the opinion of 
 Judge Bennett, is that the exclusion of Bible reading from 
 the district schools is derogatory to the value of the Holy 
 Scriptures, a blow to their influence upon the conduct and 
 consciences of men, and disastrous to the cause of religion. 
 We most emphatically reject these views. The priceless 
 truths of the Bible are best taught to our youth in the 
 church, the sabbath and parochial schools, the social relig- 
 ious meetings, and above all by parents in the home circle. 
 There those truths may be exi)lained and enforced, the 
 spiritual welfare of the child guarded and protected, and 
 his spiritual nature directed and cultivated, in accordance 
 with the dictates of the parental conscience. The constitu- 
 tion does not interfere with such teaching and culture. It 
 only banishes theological polemics from the district schools. 
 It does this, not because of any hostility to religion, but 
 because the people who adopted it believed that the public 
 good would thereby be promoted, and they so declared in 
 the preamble. Religion teaches obedience to law, and 
 flourishes best where good government prevails. The con- 
 stitutional prohibition was adopted in the interests of good 
 government, and it argues but little faith in the vitality 
 and power of religion, to predict disaster to its progress be- 
 cause a constitutional provision, enacted for such a pur- 
 pose, is faithfully executed. 
 
 The order of the circuit court overruling the demurrer of 
 the relators to the answer of the school board must be re- 
 versed, and the cause remanded with directions to that 
 court to give judgment for the relators on the demurrer, 
 awarding a peremptory writ of mandamu^s, as prayed in 
 the petition. 
 
23 
 
 OPINION BY JUSTICE J. B. CASSODAY. 
 
 The gravity of the questions involved in this case are 
 fully appreciated. They have received the careful consid- 
 eration of all the members of the court. The writing of the 
 formal opinion has fallen to the lot of Mr. Justice Lyon. 
 At his suggestion, a separate presentation of one branch of 
 the case is here made. Before entering upon its direct dis- 
 cussion, however, but as leading to it, a few general obser- 
 vations may not be wholly unprofitable. It is undoubtedly 
 true, as once observed by Mr. Justice Baldwin, that: "In 
 the construction of the constitution, we must look to the 
 history of the times, and examine the state of things ex- 
 isting when it was framed and adopted, to ascertain the old 
 laiv,the mischief and the remedy." R. I. v. Mass., 12 Peters, 
 723. A few years later, Mr. Justice Story said: "Perhaps 
 the safest rule of interpretation, after all, will be found to 
 be, to look to the nature and objects of the particular pow- 
 ers, duties and rights, with all the lights and aids of con- 
 temporary history; and to give to the words of each, just such 
 operation and force, consistent with their legitimate mean- 
 ing, as may faiydy secure and attain the ends proposed.'' 
 Prigg v. Pa., 16 Peters, 610-11. These observations were of 
 course made with reference to our federal constitution, but 
 they are equally applicable to our state constitution. In so 
 far as the rules there suggested may aid in the construction 
 of the provisions of our constitution here involved, they 
 may properly be invoked. It is probably in this view that 
 counsel have dwelt so extensively upon the history of the 
 Christian church and its status under different charters and 
 constitutions; although much of it has a very remote, if 
 any, bearing upon the questions here presented. All are 
 familiar with the fact, that the Jews in the time of the 
 Apostles, were divided into "the sect of the Sadducees ^' 
 and "the sect of the Pharisees." Paul declared in the 
 presence of Agrippa, "tliat after the str attest sect'' of their 
 religion, he had "lived a Pharisee"; and when Tertullus 
 charged him with being "a ringleader of the sect of the 
 Nazarenes," he boldly confessed, " that after the way which 
 they "" called " heresy," or as the new version has it, "a 
 sect," he had worshipped or served the God of his fathers; 
 and afterwards to the "chief of the Jews " at Rome, he 
 discoursed "concerning this sect," and persuaded "them 
 concerning Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the 
 prophets." Of course "the sect of the Nazarenes" subse- 
 quently acquired the more honorable name of " Christians." 
 As the centuries rolled on and Christians became more 
 numerous, disputes arose among themselves, from time to 
 time, in matters of faith, doctrine, practice and interpreta- 
 
24 
 
 tion of certain passages of scripture, and these lead to re- 
 peated divisions and subdivisions until the different sects 
 of Christians became very numerous. There is no purpose 
 here of indicating that the holy scriptures — the Old and 
 ITew Testament — if considered as a whole and fully com- 
 prehended, would exclude from the promises therein con- 
 tained, any of the human race complying with the essential 
 conditions therein prescribed; but since every translation 
 made by man must be more or less imperfect, and since the 
 application of particular passages is liable to be made with 
 partial apprehension, and biased or even distorted judg- 
 ment, it is easy to perceive how texts of scripture may be 
 read with such an emphasis and tone as to become exces- 
 sively sectarian. While the members of any particular 
 sect may be willing to have one of their own number read 
 the Bible in the public schools, yet they are not always will- 
 ing to concede the same to a member of a sect believing in 
 an opposite faith or doctrine. But the law is impartial and 
 has given no rights to any one sect that is not equally se- 
 cured to every other. The relation of the church to the 
 scriptures has been a subject of controversy ever since the 
 reformation. Upon that question even Protestants have 
 differed. Some have gone so far as to say that: '^The 
 Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants'^; 
 while others have declared that: ''The living church is 
 more than the dead Bible, for it is the Bible and something 
 more." The relations of church and state have been the 
 subject of discussion for many centuries; and at certain 
 times and in certain nations of Europe, one particular sect 
 has been the established church of the state, and at other 
 times or in other nations, the belief of some other sect has 
 been the established religion, — while other sects, not so 
 favored, were either exterminated altogether, or permitted 
 to remain on conditions more or less disagreeable and 
 humiliating. These discriminations naturally generated 
 bitterness, enmities and even cruel war among brethren. 
 Many of the early immigrants to this country had felt the 
 despotism of such intolerance, and came hither in conse- 
 quence of it. They came from different countries of Europe, 
 and consequently had experienced different types of intol- 
 erance. Some of them were as narrow-minded, in such 
 matters, as their oppressors had been, and hence no sooner 
 acquired civil power, than they themselves became intoler- 
 ant toward all sects except their own. Such divisions, 
 controversies and contentions among professing Christians, 
 were supposed by many to be repugnant to the sublime 
 teachings and fraternal spirit revealed to the world through 
 Jesus Christ. Many of the colonists — especially when they 
 came to the formation of state governments, proved to be 
 sufficiently broad and liberal to exact nothing for them- 
 selves, nor their particular sect, that they were unwilling to 
 
25 
 
 grant to any other citizen and his particular sect. This be- 
 nign spirit seemed to extend as its wisdom became more 
 manifest by experience. True, the constitution of South 
 Carolina, adopted in 1778, declared that the " Christian 
 Protestant religion" was the '^ established religion " of that 
 state; laut that was modified in 1790, so as to secure freedom 
 and prevent discrimination or preference in worship or re- 
 ligion. The constitution of ISTorth Carolina, of 1776, ex- 
 cluded from office all non-believers in the Protestant 
 religion or the divine authority of the Old or New Testa- 
 ment; while the constitution of Delaware, of the same year, 
 made every official subscribe to a confession of faith; but 
 that was abrogated sixteen years afterwards, and equal 
 protection was extended to all sects. So the first constitu- 
 tions of Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire and 
 later, of Connecticut, provided for the support by taxation, 
 or otherwise, of the Christian or Protestant Christian re- 
 ligion, with more or less toleration guaranteed to other 
 sects. Such direct sanction and toleration seem to have 
 been inspired by a lingering attachment for, or a sympathy 
 with, the European theory of the union between church and 
 state. But the several states of New Jersey, New York, 
 Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia from the first, and 
 later, Maine and Khode Island of the New England states, 
 and every or nearly every state admitted into the Union 
 after the organization of the Federal Government, expressly 
 secured, in effect, in their respective state constitutions, the 
 equal freedom of every religious sect, organization and 
 society, with a guaranty against preference or discrimina- 
 tion. So firm had become the public conviction in favor of a 
 broad liberality and equal protection in such matters, at the 
 time of the organization of our national government, that, al- 
 though the Federal constitution, as originally adopted, did 
 not mention nor refer to the sub j ect, yet the first session of the 
 first congress proposed the first amendment to that instru- 
 ment prohibiting congress from making any "law respecting 
 an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
 thereof," notwithstanding no power had therein been 
 granted to enact such a law, and no such law could be le- 
 gally enacted without such grant of power first being made. 
 The learned counsel for the school board contends, in 
 effect, that the third of the "articles of compact, between 
 the original states, and the people and states " carved out 
 of the old "northwest territory," is still in force in Wis- 
 consin; and that under it, this state is required and bound 
 to directly foster and encourage " religion " through schools 
 and education. Assuming such to be the meaning of the 
 article, which is, to say the least, debatable, still it is only 
 necessary here to say, in addition to what is said by my 
 associate, that, by the adoption of our state constitution, 
 and the admission of the state into the Union, that article 
 
'26 
 
 became superseded and ceased to be longer in force. This 
 has, in effect, been firmly settled by the repeated decisions 
 of the supreme court of the United States. Pollard v. 
 Hogan, 3 How., 212; Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How,, 
 609; StToder v. Graham, 10 How,, 94, 97; Escanaha Co. v. 
 Chicago, 107 U. S., 678; Cardwell 'v. Bridge Co., 113 U. S., 
 205; liuse v. Grover, 119 U. S., 543; Sands v. Manistee River 
 Imp. Co., 123 U. S. , 288; Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. 
 Hatch, 125 U. S., 9. The question^ therefore, recurs, whether 
 the provisions of our state constitution, here involved, when 
 construed with reference to the evils, or supposed evils 
 thereby sought to be suppressed, and the object or purpose 
 thereby sought to be secured, permitted or prohibited the 
 stated reading of the Bible as a text-book in the public 
 schools. Wisconsin, as one of the latter states admitted 
 into the Union, having before it the experience of others, 
 and probably in view of its heterogeneous population, as 
 mentioned in the opinion of my associate, has, in her or- 
 ganic law, probably furnished a more complete bar to any 
 preference for, or discrimination against, any religious 
 sect, organization or society, than any other state in the 
 Union. Our state constitution expressly prohibits any 
 religious test as a qualification for office, or the ex- 
 clusion of any witness in consequence of his religious 
 opinion. Section 19, Art. I. Aside from the clause just 
 referred to, and the one against sectarian instruction, 
 so fully considered by my brother Lyon, our state 
 constitution provides, that: [1] "the right of every 
 man to worship Almighty God, according to the dic- 
 tates of his own conscience, shall never be infringed; 
 (2) nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or sup- 
 port any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry 
 against his consent; (3) nor shall any control of or inter- 
 ference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any 
 preference be given by law to any religious establishments, 
 or modes of worship; (4) nor shall any money be drawn 
 from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or 
 religious or theological seminaries." §18, Art. I. The de- 
 cisions of courts in states having no such constitutional 
 prohibition, of course can have no application to the case 
 at bar. The question thus presented, is not one of sectarian 
 predilection, nor of religious belief, nor of theological con- 
 ception, nor of sentiment, but one of fundamental law. It 
 is no part of the duty of this court to make or unmake, but 
 simply to construe this provision of the constitution. All 
 questions of political and governmental ethics — all ques- 
 tions of policy must be regarded as having been tullj 
 considered by the convention which framed, and conclu- 
 sively determined by the people who adopted the constitu- 
 tion more than forty years ago. The oath of every official 
 in the state, is, to support that constitution as it is, and not 
 
27 
 
 as it might have been. The Wisconsin Central Railroad 
 Co. V. Taylor County, 52 Wis., 58; Lake County v. Rollins, 
 130 U. S., 672. That oath is to be kept sacred, with strict 
 integrity of purpose, and without any sectarian, religious 
 or political bias or equivocation. In considering the mean- 
 ing of the section of the constitution quoted, we are to 
 remember that canon of construction adverted to by my 
 associate, and aptly expressed by Marshall, C. J., in these 
 words: " Although the spirit of an instrument, especially 
 '^ of a constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter, 
 ''yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words. It 
 "would be dangerous in the extreme, to infer from extrin- 
 "sic circumstances, that a case for which the words of an 
 "instrument expressly provide shall be exempted from its 
 "operation." Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton, 202. 
 Similar expressions have come to us from the same court 
 within a year. " If the words convey a definite meaning 
 which involves no absurdity nor any contradiction of other 
 parts of the instrument, then that meaning, apparent on 
 the face of the instrument, must be accepted, and neither 
 the courts nor the legislature have the right to add to it or 
 take from it.'' Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S., 670. The 
 first and third clauses of the section of the constitution 
 quoted, are similar in their scope and may, therefore, be 
 considered together. They read: (1) "The right of every 
 man to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of 
 his own conscience, shall never be infringed; * * (3) 
 nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of 
 conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law 
 to any religious establishment, or modes of worship." This 
 language is quite similar to, and may have been taken in 
 part from, the constitution of Pennsylvania, as well as 
 other states. In commenting upon a similar clause in the 
 Pennsylvania constitution, in the celebrated Girard will 
 case, Mr. Justice Story, speaking for the whole court, ob- 
 served: " Language more comprehensive for the complete 
 protection of every variety of religious opinion, could 
 scarcely be used; and it must have been intended to extend 
 equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity 
 or notj and whether they were Jews or infidels. So that we 
 are compelled to' admit that although Christianity be a part 
 of 1|he common law of the state, yet it is so in this qualified 
 seiise, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and 
 therefore ii is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and 
 blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the 
 injury of the public. Such was the doctrine of the supreme 
 court of Pennsylvania in Updegraff v. The Commonivealth, 
 11 Serg. & Rowle, 394.'' Vidal v. Girard Ex., 2 How., U. S., 
 198. In commenting upon a similar clause in the Ohio 
 constitution, Mr. Justice Thurman, speaking for the whole 
 court, said: " We sometimes hear it said that all religions 
 
28 
 
 are tolerated in Ohio; but the expression is not strictly ac- 
 curate; much less accurate is it to say that one religion is 
 a part of our law, and all others only tolerated. It is not 
 by mere toleration that every individual here is protected in 
 his belief or disbelief. He reposes not upon the leniency of 
 government, or the liberality of any class or sect of men, 
 but upon his natural, indefeasible rights of conscience, 
 which, in the language of the constitution, are beyond the 
 control or interference of any human authority/' Bloom 
 V. Richards, 2 Ohio St., 390. In considering the two clauses 
 quoted from our constitution, we are to bear in mind the 
 general proposition conceded by all, that our state consti- 
 tution is not a grant, but a limitation of powers. The 
 State ex rel. Graef v. Forest County, 74 Wis., 615. Viewed 
 in this light, and it will readily be perceived that these 
 clauses operate as a perpetual bar to the state, and each 
 of the three departments of the state government, and 
 every agency thereof, from the infringement, control 
 or interference with the individual rights of every per- 
 son, as indicated therein, or the giving of any prefer- 
 ence by law to any religious sect or mode of worship. 
 They presuppose the voluntary exercise of such rights 
 by any person, or body of persons, who may desire, 
 and by implication guarantee protection in the free- 
 dom of such exercise. We neither have nor can have in 
 this state, under our present constitution, any statutes of 
 toleration, nor of union, directly or indirectly, between 
 church and state, for the simple reason that the constitu- 
 tion forbids all such preferences and guarantees all such 
 rights. But the exercise of such rights by one person, or 
 any given number of persons, cannot be so extended as to 
 interfere with the exercise of similar rights by other per- 
 sons, nor so far as to prevent the legitimate exercise of the 
 police powers of the state in preserving order, securing good 
 citizenship, the administration of law, and the Sabbath as 
 a day of rest. Stanshiiry v. Macks, 2 DalL, 213; The Com- 
 moiiivealth v. Wolf, 3 S. & R., 48; Comynomvealth v. Lesher, 
 17 S. & R., 155; McGatrick v. Wason, 4 Ohio St., 566; Simon 
 V. Grotz, 23 Am. Dec, 33; Shover v. State, 10 Ark., 259; 
 Ferriter v. Tyler, 48 Vt., 469; State ex rel. Walker v. Judge 
 of Section A., 1 South, Rep., 437. Such statutes come 
 within no constitutional provision and are founded upon 
 an impregnable basis. The two clauses mentioned, recog- 
 nize the existence of different religious establishments or 
 sects, and different modes of worship, but they do not have 
 so direct a bearing upon the question here presented, as the 
 second and fourth clauses which will now be considered. 
 The second clause of the section quoted, is to the effect, 
 that no man shall "be compelled to attend, erect or support 
 any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against 
 his consent.'' Is the stated reading of the Bible in the 
 
29 
 
 public schools as a text-book, '' worship " within the mean- 
 ing of this clause? As indicated in the clauses already 
 considered, the word "worship,'' as here used, includes any 
 and every mode of worshiping Almighty God. Webster 
 has defined it as: '" The act of paying divine honors to the 
 Supreme Being; religious reverence and homage; adoration 
 paid 10 God or a being viewed as God. * * ' The wor- 
 ship of God is an eminent part of religion, and prayer is a 
 chief part of religious worship.'" Worcester defines it as: 
 " 3. Adoration; a religious act of reverence; honor paid to 
 the Supreme Being, or by heathen nations to their deities. 
 'Worship consists in the performance of all those ex- 
 ternal acts, and the observance of all those rights and 
 ceremonies, in which men engage with the professed 
 and sole view of honoring God. * * They join their 
 vocal worship to the quire of creatures wanting voice ' * * 
 4. Honor; respect; civil deference.'' The Jmpe?'taZ defines it 
 as ''4. Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine hon- 
 ors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid 
 to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, con- 
 fession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like." The Bible 
 Dictionary declares, that the "worship of God both spirit- 
 ual and. visible, private and public, by individuals, families 
 and communities * * is abundantly commanded in his 
 word." In theology, we are told, that, "The honor which 
 is due in a peculiar "^sense to God, consists supremely in re- 
 ligious worship; in making him the object of our supreme 
 affection; and rendering to him our supreme obedience. '' 
 1 Dwighfs TJieo., 555. Certainly the reading of the Holy 
 Scriptures, as the eternal word of God, in obedience to the 
 often repeated injunction therein contained, whether by the 
 individual in private, or in the family, or in the public as- 
 sembly, is an essential part of divine worship. Every sermon 
 is based upon some text of scripture. Most prayers are pre- 
 ceded by the reading of some passage of scripture, as an in- 
 telligent guide to the thoughts of the worshiper or worship- 
 ers. The sermon on the mount contains the prayer taught 
 by the blessed Lord. Is it possible for any genuine believer 
 in the Christian religion, to read, or listen to the reading of 
 that sermon, and especially that prayer, without being 
 filled with a holy sense of honor, reverence, adoration and 
 homage to Almighty God, which is the very essence of wor- 
 ship. We must hold that the stated reading of the Bible in 
 the public schools, as a text-book, maybe "worship" within 
 the meaning of the clause of the constitution under con- 
 sideration. If, then, such reading of the Bible is worship, 
 can there be any doubt but what the school-room in which 
 it is so statedly read, is a "place of worship," within the 
 meaning of the same clause of the constitution? Counsel 
 seem to argue, that such place of worship should be con- 
 fined to some church edifice, or place where the members 
 
30 
 
 of a church statedly worship. Some of the earlier consti- 
 tutions having similar clauses, used the words ''building^' 
 and "church." Manifestly the words, ''place of worship,"' 
 were advisedly used, as applicable to any "place" or struc- 
 ture where worship is statedly held, and which the citizen 
 is "compelled to attend" or the taxpayers are compelled 
 "to erect or support." The mere fact that only a small frac- 
 tion of the school hours is devoted to such worship, in no way 
 justifies such use as against an objecting tax-payer. If the 
 right be conceded, then the length of time so devoted becomes 
 a matter of discretion. If such right does not exist, then 
 any length of time, however short, is forbidden. The re- 
 lators, as tax-payers of the district, were compelled to aid 
 in the erection of the school building in question, and also 
 to aid in the support of the school maintained therein. 
 §§430, 430 [a], S. & B's Ann. St. Being thus compelled to 
 aid in such erection and support, they have a legal right to 
 object to its being used as a " place of worship." In fact it 
 has been held, that it can be devoted to no other use as 
 against an objecting tax payer. School District No. 8, 
 V. Ai^nold, 21 Wis., 657. In that case a temperance society 
 obtained permission from a majority of the electors present 
 at a school meeting, duly called, to hold its meetings in the 
 school-house. But it was held that such electors had no 
 authority to thus divert its use. The present chief justice, 
 speaking for the court, among other things said. "The 
 statute has not given the board, nor the electors of the dis- 
 trict, any authority to permit a school-house to be used for 
 meetings of the Sons of Temperance, or anything of the 
 kind. So the action of the electors of the district * * 
 was wholly unauthorized, and furnished no defence to the 
 action." To the same effect are: Spencer v. Joint SchooV 
 Dist., 15 Kas., 259; S. C, 22 Am. K., 268; Dorton v. Hearn, 
 67 Mo., 301; Scliofield v. Eighth School Dist., 27 Conn., 499; 
 Weir V. Day, 35 Ohio St., 143. There are cases of a contrary 
 import, but it is very certain, that, as against an objecting 
 tax payer, such school-house cannot be devoted to a use ex- 
 pressly forbidden by the constitution of the state — as for 
 instance as a place of worship. There is another feature of 
 the clause we are considering which requires attention. 
 Under our statutes, the children of the relators, between 
 certain ages, were bound to attend some public or private 
 school for a certain period of each year. § 489a S. & B. 
 Ann. St., [ch. 121, L. 1879, ch. 298, L. 1882, ch. 73, L. 1887], 
 superseded by §489 b., S. & B. Ann. St. [ch. 519, L. 1889]. 
 In the case of a poor man incapable of educating his chil- 
 dren at private expense, they are "compelled to attend" 
 such school without the consent of themselves or their par- 
 ents, notwithstanding it is, in a limited sense, a place of 
 worship; and in the case of men of property, it might im- 
 pose an unauthorized burden. This, as we understand, is 
 
prohibited by the clause of the constitution we are consid- 
 ering. 
 
 The fourth clause of the section of the constitution quoted, 
 declares, in effect, that no money shall ''be drawn from 
 the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious 
 or theological seminaries." As argued by the learned coun- 
 sel for the school board, the word '' treasury " in this clause, 
 probably refers to the state treasury. But we are to 
 remember that the school in question receives annually 
 from the state treasury, its proportionate share not only of 
 the school fund income [§ 554 K. S., § 3, ch. 124 L. 1885, and 
 ch. 277, L. 1887], but also of the one mill tax. § 1070, A. S. 
 and B. Ann. St.' [ch. 287, L. 1885]. The question thus 
 recurs, whether the money thus drawn from the state treas- 
 ury for the maintenance and support of the school in ques- 
 tion is for the benefit of a religious seminary, within the 
 meaning of this clause of the constitution. A seminary is 
 defined by Webster, as a ''place of training; institution of 
 education; a school, academy, college or university, in 
 which young persons are instructed in the several branches 
 of learning which may qualifiy them for their future em- 
 ployments." It manifestly includes institutions of leaning 
 or education of different grades. But a religious seminary 
 of any one grade is just as effectually forbidden as a 
 religious seminary of any higher or other grade. The thing 
 that is prohibited, is, the drawing of any money from the 
 state treasury for the benefit of any religious school. If the 
 stated reading of the Bible in the school, as a text-book, is, 
 not only in a limited sense worship, but also instruction, 
 as it rnanifestly is, then there is no escape from the 
 conclusion that is is religious instruction; and hence the 
 money so drawn from the state treasury, was for the 
 benefit of a religious school within the meaning of this 
 clause of the constitution. The constitutions of Mass- 
 achusets, New Hampshire and some other states, differ 
 so widely from ours, as to make the adjudications in 
 those states almost wholly inapplicable to the question here 
 presented. It is conceded that no decision has been found, 
 under constitutional provisions like ours, squarely sustain- 
 ing the ruling of the learned trial court. Some things have 
 been said in some of the cases cited, arising under some- 
 what similar constitutional provisions, that may seem to sup- 
 port it. Among these are Donohoe v. Richards, 38 Me., 379; 
 S. C, 61 Am. Dec, 256; Ferriter v. Tyler, 48 Vt., U4:; Moore 
 V. Monroe, 64 Iowa, 367, Millard '?;. Board of Education, 
 121 111., 297. The Maine case, largely involving other con- 
 siderations, is based, in part, upon decisions under con- 
 stitutions widely differing from ours, and was decided under 
 a constitution containing none of the provisions upon which 
 especial stress is here laid. The same is partially true of the 
 Vermont case. The same is true in a limited sense of the 
 
32 
 
 Iowa and Illinois cases; and in neither of which is anj 
 adjudication cited. The following cases seem to be in har- 
 mony with the conclusions we have reached. State of 
 Nevada v. Hallock, 16 Fev., 373; The Board of Ed. of Cin- 
 cinnati V. Minor, 23 Ohio, St., 211; State ex rel. Stullard 
 V. White, 82 Ind., 278; S. C, 42 Am. E., 496; Spencer v. 
 Joint School Dist., supra; Dorton v. Hearn, supra; Scho- 
 field V. Eighth School Dist., supra; and Weir v. Day, 
 supra. They are, moreover, in harmony with prior decis- 
 ions of this court. Morrow v. l^ood, 35 Wis., 59; School 
 Dist. No. 8 V. Arnold, supra. In the E'evada case the 
 decision was adverse to the use of the Catholic Bible. We 
 deem it unnecessary to enter upon an extended analysis of 
 the numerous adjudications cited, since the constitutional 
 provisions here involved rest upon us with an imperative 
 command. The unanimous result of our deliberations, is 
 as directed by Mr. Justice Lyon. 
 
 OPmiON^ BY JUSTICE H. S. ORTON 
 
 I most fully and cordially concur in the decision, and in 
 the opinions of Justices Lyon and Cassoday, in this case. 
 
 It is not needful that any other opinion should be written, 
 but I thought it proper to state briefly some of the reasons 
 which have induced such concurrence in the decision. 
 
 " The right of every man to worship Almighty God ac- 
 cording to the dictates of his own conscience shall never 
 be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, 
 erect or support any place of worship, * * nor shall any 
 control or interference with the rights of conscience be 
 permitted, or any preference be given by law to any re- 
 ligious establishments or modes of worship.*' Const., Art. I. 
 Sec. 18. 
 
 "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification 
 for any office of public trust under the state, and no person 
 shall be rendered incompetent to give evidence in any 
 court of law or equity, in consequence of his opinions on 
 the subject of religion." Const. Art. I. Sec. 19. 
 
 ''The interest of 'the school fund," and all other revenues 
 derived from the school lands, shall be exclusively applied," 
 etc., " to the support and maintenance of common schools 
 in each school-district," etc. Art. 10, Sec. 2, Subd. 1. 
 
 ''The legislature shall provide by law for the establish- 
 ment of district schools which shall be as nearly uniforrn 
 as practicable; and such schools shall be free, and without 
 charge for tuition to all children between the ages of four 
 and twenty years; and no sectarian instruction shall be al- 
 lowed therein." Art. 10, Sec. 3. 
 
33 
 
 ''Each town and city shall be required to raise by tax 
 annually, for the support of common schools therein, a sum 
 not less," etc. Art. 10, Sec. 4. ''Provision shall be made 
 by law, for the distribution of the income of the school fund 
 among the several towns and cities of the state, for the sup- 
 port of common schools therein,'' etc. Art. 10, Sec. 5. 
 
 These provisions of the constitution are cited together to 
 show how completely this state, as a civil government, and 
 all its civil institutions, are divorced from all possible con- 
 nection or alliance with any and all religions, religious 
 worship, religious establishments or modes of worship, and 
 with every thing of a religious character or appertaining 
 to religion. And to show how completely all are protected 
 in their religion and rights of conscience, and that no one 
 shall ever be taxed or compelled to support any religion or 
 place of worship, or to attend upon the same, and more 
 especially to show that our common schools, as one of the 
 institutions of the state created by the constitution, stand, 
 in all these respects, like any other institution of the state, 
 completely excluded from all possible connection or alliance 
 with religion, or religious worship, or with anything of a 
 religious character, and guarded by the constitutional pro- 
 hibition,- that "no sectarian instruction shall be allowed 
 therein." They show also that the common schools are free 
 to all alike, to all nationalities, to all sects of religion, to all 
 ranks of society, and to all complexions. For these equal 
 privileges and rights of instruction in them, all are taxed 
 equally and proportionately. The constitutional name, 
 "common schools," expresses their equality and universal 
 patronage and support. Common schools are not common, 
 as being low in character or grade, but common to all alike, 
 to everybody and to all sects, or denominations of religion, 
 but without bringing religion into them. The common 
 schools, like all the other institutions of the state, are pro- 
 tected by the constitution from all " control or interference 
 with the rights of conscience," and from all preferences 
 given by law to any religious establishments or modes of 
 worship. As the state can have nothing to do with religion, 
 except to protect every one in the enjoyment of his own, so 
 the common schools can have nothing to do with religion, 
 in any respect whatever. They are as completely secular 
 as any of the other institutions of the state, in which all 
 the people, alike, have equal rights and privileges. The 
 people cannot be taxed for religion in schools, more than 
 anywhere else. Religious instruction, in the common 
 schools, is clearly prohibited by these general clauses of 
 the constitution, as religious instruction or worship in any 
 other department of state, supported by the revenue de- 
 rived from taxation. The clause, that " no sectarian 
 instruction shall be allowed therein," was inserted ex 
 industria to exclude everything pertaining to religion. 
 
34 
 
 They are called by those who wish to have not only 
 religion, but their own religion, taught therein, " Godless 
 schools/' They are Godless, and the educational depart- 
 ment of the government is Godless, in the same sense that 
 the executive, legislative and administrative departments 
 are Godless. So long as our constitution remains as it is, 
 no one's religion can be taught in our common schools. By 
 religion, I mean religion as a system, not religion in the 
 sense of natural law. Religion in the latter sense is the 
 source of all law and government, justice and truth. 
 Religion as a system of belief cannot be taught without 
 offense to those who have their own peculiar views of re- 
 ligion, no more than it can be without offense to the differ- 
 ent sects of religion. How can religion, in this sense, be 
 taught in the common schools, without taxing the people 
 for or on account of it. The only object, purpose or use 
 for taxation by law in this state, must be exclusively secular. 
 There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, 
 malignant opposition, persecution and war, and all evil in 
 the state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil 
 affairs, oxh: government would soon be destroyed. Let it 
 once enter into our common schools, they would be de- 
 stroyed. Those who made our constitution, saw this, and 
 used the most apt and comprehensive language in it, to 
 prevent such a catastrophe. It is said, if reading the Pro- 
 testant version of the Bible in school is offensive to the 
 parents of some of the scholars, and antagonistic to 
 their own religious views, their children can retire. They 
 ought not to be compelled to go out of the school for such 
 a reason, for one moment. The suggestion itself concedes 
 the whole argument. That version of the Bible is hostile 
 to the belief of many who are taxed to support the com- 
 mon schools, and who have equal rights and privileges in 
 them. It is a source of religious and sectarian strife. That 
 is enough. It violates the letter and spirit of the constitu- 
 tion. No state constitution ever existed, that so completely 
 excludes and precludes the possibility of religious strife in 
 the civil affairs of the state, and yet so fully protects all 
 alike in the enjoyment of their own religion. All sects 
 and denominations may teach the people their own 
 doctrines in all proper places. Our constitution pro- 
 tects all, and favors none. But they must keep 
 out of the common schools and civil affairs. It re- 
 quires but little argument to prove that the Protestant 
 version of the Bible, or any other version of the Bible, is 
 the source of religious strife and opposition, and opposed to 
 the religious belief of many of our people. It is a sectarian 
 book. The Protestants were a very small sect in religion, 
 at one time, and they are a sect yet, to the great Catholic 
 church against whose usages they protested, and so is their 
 version of the Bible sectarian, as against the Catholic ver- 
 
35 
 
 sion of it. The common school is one of the most indis- 
 pensable, useful and valuable civil institutions this state 
 has. It is democratic, and free to all alike, in perfect 
 equality, where all the children of our people stand on a 
 common platform, and may enjoy the benefits of an equal 
 and common education. An enemy to our common schools 
 is an enemy to our state government. It is the same hos- 
 tility that would cause any religious denomination, that 
 had acquired the ascendancy over all others, to remodel 
 our constitution, and change our government and all of its 
 institutions, so as to make them favorable only to itself, and 
 exclude all others from their benefits and protection. In 
 such an event, religious and sectarian instruction will be 
 given in all schools. Religion needs no support from the 
 state. It is stronger and much purer without it. This case 
 is important and timely. It brings before the courts a case 
 of the plausible, insidious, and apparently innocent en- 
 trance of religion into our civil affairs, and of an assault 
 upon the most valuable provisions of the constitution. 
 Those provisions should be pondered and heeded by all of 
 our people, of all nationalities and of all denominations of 
 religion, who desire the perpetuity and value the blessings 
 of our free government. That such is their meaning and 
 interpretation, no one can doubt, and it requires no citation 
 of authorities to show. It is religion and sectarian instruc- 
 tion that are excluded by them. Morality and good con- 
 duct may be inculcated in the comnaon schools, and should 
 be. The connection of church and state corrupts religion, 
 and makes the state despotic. 
 
Library of Congress 
 
iLf «S^ ^^ CONGRESS 
 
 
 
 ^:. tt 
 
 
 
 r*----. 
 
 »*^ ■:-:■.■];