Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al.

Leaving these questions of secular teaching, and what is claimed to be worship, may it not be admitted that the Bible may properly be read for its moral teaching, its history, its geographical descriptions, its pure Saxon English, so simple that every ordinary capacity may be instructed, and the most exalted intellect find material for profound thought.

Where else do we find an intimation even of the origin of our world and of man, briefly stated, without explaining the mighty forces employed in the work of creation? When Longinus exclaimed that the true idea of the sublime was contained in the expression, "God said let there be light, and there was light," he gave but the echo of the same thought which has impressed the philosopher for ages. Such a gem would have established in his estimation the veracity of the volume, had it been questioned.

There has not been, we may assert, and never can be, a system of ethics that it not directly or remotely dependent on the lessons taught in the Scriptures, and to this source we may trace all that is "pure and lovely and of good report" among men. This, then, is not a dangerous volume to place in the hands of the young. Historically, it is the oldest record of past time. Centuries before Herodotus, the father of history, wrote his annals, all the books of the Old Testament, except that of Malachi, had been written, and were known and read wherever the Israelites were dispersed. We find here the earliest mention of Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt. The record of time is contemporaneous with the oldest dynasties, verified as they are by the cuneiform inscriptions found among the ruins upon the Tigris and Euphrates, and the hieroglyphs in the sarcophagi disinterred from the catacombs on the Nile. Palestine, with all her old associations, is revived, when the traveler uses the sacred volume as his text-book. It is a veritable itinerary, and alone has enabled the scholar to determine the places memorable for the demonstration of Jehovah's power, as when the sun stood still at Ajalon, or the shadow went back on the dial of Ahaz. Bethlehem, and Hebron, and Damascus, the whole valley of the Jordan, are here described accurately, and without which their former history would be imperfectly known.

Can it then be said that what the prophets of the Old Testament foretold of Nineveh and Babylon, when the excavations of

Minor et al v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al.

Leyard and Botta, and the researches of Rawlinson have confirmed the prediction, may not be perused by the children as a part of their education in the history and geography of the world? When Volney's travels in Syria, which describe the destruction of Tyre and Sidon, are not prohibited by the Board of Education, is it just to exclude what the Sacred Volume asserted would be their fate a thousand years before their destruction? There is to be no censorship over the Latin and Greek classics, or German and French literature, however exceptionable may be the production; the crusade is against the Bible only, the first printed volume after types were invented, and which, since 1450, has been regarded by millions as the word of God—a book which, from its first publication in Latin, has been translated, and is now circulated in more than two hundred languages; a volume recognized by every civilized government as sacred, and has ever retained, and, we trust, will ever retain, as contradistinguished from all other books, the name it bears-THE BIBLE.

As a work of history or geography, therefore, it bears the highest evidence of its accuracy, and commends itself to every intelligent mind as a faithful record of facts. Its prohibition, then, may, for like reasons as those given by counsel, include the works of Josephus, Pope's Essay on Man, Milton's Paradise Lost, Hallam's Middle Ages, Prescott's Phillip II., and Motleys History of the Netherland's, for each of these offend some conscience on the ground that private judgment is interfered with.

The resolution which dismisses the Bible forbids all religious instruction, as well as vocal music. It is a sweeping edict that comprehends not only the Holy Scriptures, but all other religious instruction, leaving the schools practically "without hope and without God;" not even natural religion is to be taught, the existence of a Deity, or the responsibility of man to his Creator. All is left a blank, if the inquiring pupil should interrogate the teacher as to his origin, he may be referred to the geologists, but not to Genesis. If he should be asked why it is that the Sabbath day is to be observed, he may be postponed until the teacher obtains the consent of the Board of Education to answer the question, thus leaving the scholar in doubt as to the meaning of what is constantly passing before his eye.

Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al.

If, peradventure, at home, the pupil should have read of the Deluge, the instructor, if asked when and where it occurred, he may, if he is a mere humanitarian, assure the inquirer that the statement is a myth and not a verity. Such a state of moral discipline could not have been anticipated when the common schools were organized and the course of study prescribed, else we believe no pupil would have been taught, and no building been erected for his accommodation.

In this connection we can not well understand why the axe was not laid at the root, and the high schools which are equally supported by taxation, included within the terms of the excluding resolution. It is true that the Board could not, ex officio, have regulated the Trustees of those schools, but they might have intimated to them what they believed to be the true purpose of education. As it is, though the children in the preparatory department are forbidden to do what we believe they ought to do, whenever they enter the high schools, which it is their privilege to enter when properly prepared, they may read the Scriptures and receive such religious instruction as the spirit of the Constitution secures to them as individuals, and may well demand they should know that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, without which there is no security for the public safety, or the protection of individual right.

Much stress is laid upon the idea that the former rule prescribing the reading of the Scriptures was compulsory upon the scholars, and so were all regulations in the course of instruction; but compulsory clauses do not make the rule illegal if right in itself. That it was right and proper we have already affirmed, and we need not again state the fact.

We have been referred to the opinions of many celebrated men, on theoretical questions, where public education is involved; and, while we have been instructed by their abstract notions, we can not defer to their judgment, unless we are satisfied they have investigated the subject from an American standpoint, where the largest liberty is to be tolerated, and unless the great principles that underlie our peculiar form of government are not endangered by the admixtures of a philosophy that would ignore religion.

In the progress of science the minds of many have become

Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al.

greatly materialized, when questions of faith are involved, and it becomes us to be careful what we admit or affirm, as the result of dogmatic teachings, either in religion or morals. Until our transAtlantic brothers have become practically acquainted with the workings of our political system, their views of our social system, however learned, are entitled to but little weight.

On the whole case we are satisfied that we have complete jurisdiction of the subject before us, and of the parties; that the matters alleged by the plaintiffs and admitted by the defendants present just and equitable grounds for our interference. We so decide, because we are satisfied that the powers conferred on the defendants have been transcended; that the resolutions prohibiting the Bible and all religious instruction are ultra vires, and therefore void.

We have not referred to any adjudicated case, as those quoted by one of our colleagues fully justify us. We stand upon the admitted principles, as true in law as in equity, that the unauthorized acts of a corporate body or trustees, whose powers are prescribed by law, may be restrained. While we hold that every form of religious worship is to be alike protected by law, and the conscience of every man can not be questioned; while the broad shield of the Constitution is over all our citizens, without distinction of race or sect, we can not ignore the right of the petitioners to the relief they have sought, nor can we, with our views of legal duty, sustain the action of the defendants.

A majority of the Court are of this opinion, and a perpetual injunction will be therefore decreed, as prayed for in the petition.

Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al.

OPINION OF JUDGE TAFT.

I.

I regret to find myself in a minority on this question. Nothing but a sense of duty has induced me to prepare a dissenting opinion. The action in this case is brought to enjoin the Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati, from acting under the two following resolutions, which were adopted Nov. 1, 1869, viz. :

"Resolved, That religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible, are prohibited in the common schools of Cincinnati, it being the true object and interest of this rule, to allow the children of the parents of all sects and opinions, in matters of faith and worship, to enjoy alike the benefit of the common school fund."

"Resolved, That so much of the regulations on the course of study and text-books in intermediate and district schools (p. 213, Annual Reports), as reads as follows: The opening exercises in every department shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible by, or under, the direction of the teachers, and appropriate singing by the pupils,' be repealed."

The injunction is sought against both resolutions, but on grounds which apply mainly, if not exclusively, to the first.

I propose to consider them separately, and in the order in which they were adopted. The object of this resolution is sufficiently indicated by its language, "it being the true object and intent of this rule, to allow the children of parents of all sects and opinions in matters of faith and worship, to enjoy alike the benefit of the common school fund."

I see no reason to suppose, the Board of Education intended anything more or less, than it has thus expressed. Its opinion evidently was, as the majority have said by their answer, that in the great diversity of religious faiths which exists among us, true conformity to the spirit and language of our Constitution could be best secured, by confining the instruction in the common schools which