Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al. Carbery, F. Macke, H. P. Seibel, C. F. Bruckner, Petition Filed November 2, 1869. The plaintiffs, who bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of many others, say that they and those on whose behalf they sue, are citizens and tax-payers of the city of Cincinnati. That on the 1st day of November, A. D. 1869, the Board of Education of said city, at a regular meeting thereof, then held, passed the following resolutions by the vote of a majority of the members, to-wit: by the votes of W. J. O'Neil, J. H. Brunsman, J. W. B. Kelly, Edgar M. Johnson, Benjamin J. Ricking, D. J. Mullaney, Henry W. Poor, Joseph P. Carbery, F. Macke, H. P. Seibel, C. F. Bruckner, Stephen Wagner, Joseph Kramer, F. W. Rauch, Thomas Vickers, A. Theurkauf, John Sweeney, George D. Temple, John P. Story, Samuel A. Miller, Herman Eckel, J. F. Wisnewski, defendants, and members of said board: "Resolved, That religious instruction, and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible, are prohib Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al. ited in the Common Schools of Cincinnati, it being the true object and intent 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 the Intermediate and District Schools (page 213, Annual Report), 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by reading a portion of the Bible by or under the direction of the teacher, and appropriate singing by the pupils,' be repealed.” Plaintiffs state that the entire rule quoted from is in the words following: "The opening exercises in every department shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible by or under the direction of the teacher, and appropriate singing by the pupils. The pupils of the Common Schools may read such version of the sacred scriptures as their parents or guardians may prefer, provided that such preference of any version, except the one now in use, be communicated by the parents and guardians to the principal teachers, and that no notes or marginal readings be allowed in the schools, or comments made by the teachers on the text. of any version that is or may be introduced." Plaintiffs say that the rule last above quoted was adopted by the Board of Education of the city of Cincinnati, said board then being known as the Board of Trustees and Visitors of Common Schools, in the year 1852, and has ever since that time been in full force Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al. and effect, as one of the rules for the conduct of the schools of the said city, and that the version of the Holy Bible generally used in said schools, and referred to in the rule last above quoted as "the one now in use," is that published by the "American Bible Society,' and commonly known as King James' version. Plaintiffs further say that the reading of the Holy Bible without note or comment has been one of the daily exercises of said schools from the time of their first establishment under the general school laws of Ohio, to-wit: from about the year 1829, till now, and that instruction in the elemental truths and principles of religion has always been given in said schools, but no sectarian teaching, nor any interference with the rights of conscience has at any time been permitted. That in the year 1842 the School Board, of said city, by unanimous vote, provided that no pupil of the Common Schools of said city should be required to read the Testament or Bible if his parent or guardian should desire that said pupil should be excused from that exercise; that said provision has never been repealed, but the same is yet in full force. Plaintiffs further say, that a large number of the text books used in said schools contain selections and passages from the Holy Bible, and from other books, and from writings which inculcate religious truths; that this is especially true as to the readers in common use in said schools; that every series of school readers accessible for use in said schools recognizes and inculcates religion, and that text books which omit all religious instruction, and yet contain the principles and teachings of those branches of knowledge usual and necessary for the instruction of the youth in said schools, are not extant, and can not be had. That the enforcement of the rule proposed by said Board of Education, and so passed as aforesaid, will exclude from said schools large numbers of valuable text books which have been recently purchased by parents or guardians for the use of children attending said schools in compliance with the requirements of said Board of Education, and will require the preparation and publication of new text books, and their purchase at great expense by said parents or guardians, without any corresponding benefit to said children or said schools, but, on the contrary, to their great detriment and injury. Plaintiffs further say, that a large majority of the children in said Minor et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al. city who receive any education are educated in said schools, and of said children large numbers receive no religious instruction or knowledge of the Holy Bible, except that communicated as aforesaid in said schools, and that the enforcement of the resolutions first aforesaid will result in leaving such children without any religious instruction whatever. And the plaintiffs allege that such instruction is necessary and indispensable to fit said children to be good citizens of the State of Ohio and of the United States: and is required by the third article of the act passed by the Congress of the United States, July 13, 1787, entitled "An ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio," to be forever encouraged.. Wherefore, the plaintiffs allege that the action and resolutions aforesaid of said Board of Education are in violation of law and against public policy and morality, and are an abuse of the authority vested by law in said board; that said resolutions are in contravention of the true meaning and intent of the constitution of the State of Ohio, and, if carried into operation, will greatly injure the Common Schools of said city, which, under the rules and system of instruction above set forth and heretofore adopted, have been in the highest degree successful and useful to the children of said city, and have contributed and are contributing largely to the welfare and prosperity of the city itself. And plaintiffs further allege that the enforcement of said resolutions will have the effect to make said schools deistical and infidel both in their purpose and tendency. Plaintiffs further allege that said resolutions have not yet been promulgated to the teachers of said schools, nor put in operation therein, but that said Board of Education, unless restrained by order of this Court, will proceed immediately to enforce the same, to the great and irreparable injury of the plaintiffs and those for whom they sue, and of said schools and said city. Plaintiffs further allege, that the individuals who are named as defendants are, with the exception of W. F. Hurlbut, members of said Board of Education, duly elected and qualified, and, by virtue of their election and qualification, are acting as Trustees and Visitors of said Common Schools, and that the defendant W. F. Hurlbut is Clerk of said Board of Education, and the rules of the board require him to furnish principal teachers copies of all rules and Minor et al v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al. resolutions adopted for the regulation of the schools. Plaintiffs further allege, that the corporate authorities of the city of Cincinnati are authorized and required by law to provide for the support and regulation of the said schools in the manner prescribed by said act. Plaintiffs further allege, that they have requested the City Solicitor of said city to apply for an injunction upon the case herein stated, and he has failed and refused, and still refuses, so to do. Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that the defendants, each and all of them, be restrained from promulgating, putting in operation or enforcing said resolutions, passed November 1, 1869, as above set forth, or either of them, and from authorizing, directing, or requiring any officer, or agent, or employe of said board, or any teacher in any of said schools, to promulgate, put in operation, enforce, or obey said resolutions, or either of them, or any of the prohibitions therein contained; that upon final hearing said injunction be made perpetual, and said resolutions be adjudged null and void, and such other and further relief granted as, the premises considered, may be just and proper. SAGE & HINKLE, WM. M. RAMSEY, KING, THOMPSON & AVERY, State of Ohio, Hamilton County. Charles Bonsall, one of the plaintiffs, solemnly affirmed, says that the allegations of the foregoing petition are true. CHARLES BONSALL. Affirmed to before me, and subscribed in my presence, this 2nd day of November, A. D. 1869. [SEAL.] JULIUS DEXTER, Notary Public, Hamilton County. |