their care and instruction the principles of piety and justice, and a sacred regard for truth.”

It is not deemed necessary in this state to define by statute now the purposes of public education. They are at least as broad as the broadest under any similar system in use in any of the states.

Pfeiffer v. Board of Education of Detroit, 118 Mich. 560, 77 N. W. 250, 42 L. R. A. 536, was an application to the court to compel the board of education to discontinue the use of a certain book known as "Readings from the Bible" in the public schools of Detroit. The constitution and laws of Michigan 624 on the subject of religious freedom are substantially as are ours, save there was no express inhibition of sectarian instruction in public schools. The question decided by the court was that "Readings from the Bible," though it was used as a text-book in the school, did not violate constitutional provisions guaranteeing to every one the right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience; nor was it a compulsion of any person to attend or support any place of religious worship, or to pay taxes to any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion; nor was it an appropriation of the public money for the benefit of any religious sect or society; nor was it a diminution of the civil rights of any person on account of his religious belief. One judge dissented from the opinion of the court.

In Moore v. Monroe, 64 Iowa, 367, 20 N. W. 475, 52 Am. Rep. 444, it was shown that the teachers of the school were accustomed to occupy a few minutes each morning in reading selections from the Bible, in repeating the Lord's prayer, and singing religious songs. The plaintiff had two children in the school, but they were not required to be present during the time thus occupied. A statute of that state provided: "The Bible shall not be excluded from any school or institution in this state, nor shall any pupil be required to read it contrary to the wishes of his parent or guardian." The constitution of the state prohibited the legislature from passing any law interfering with the free exercise of religious worship, or compelling any person to pay taxes to support any religion, or for building any place of worship, or the maintenance of any ministry. The plaintiff's contention was that by the use of the schoolhouse as a place for reading the Bible, repeating the Lord's prayer, and singing religious songs it was made a place of worship; that his children

625

were compelled to attend a place of worship, and he as a taxpayer was compelled to aid in building and repairing a place of worship. The court held that the statute did not have any of the effects claimed by the plaintiff. In the absence of such a statute, a rule of the school board to the same effect could not, of course, violate the same constitutional principles, if the statute would not have done so.

The supreme court of Illinois, in McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263, 35 Am. Rep. 163, held that a rule of the directors of a public school requiring the reading of a King James edition of the Bible for fifteen minutes each morning, at which, however, no one was required to be present or to participate in, was not unconstitutional as interfering with the religious conviction of the plaintiff and his father, who were patrons of the school, and Roman Catholics.

In none of the states from which the foregoing opinions have been cited was there an express prohibition of the use of sectarian books. Still in all of them there was the familiar and fundamental constitutional provision guaranteeing religious freedom, which would have been violated, as was held in every instance, either in terms or by necessary implication, by the teaching of sectarian doctrines. That such would have been the result of such teaching seems to us to be perfectly obvious. In the very learned and exhaustive note by Judge Freeman to County of Cook v. Industrial School, 8 Am. St. Rep. 386 (case reported in 125 Ill. 540, 18 N. E. 183, 1 L. R. A. 437), it is shown that the constitutions of twenty-four states contain provisions prohibiting the payment of moneys or any appropriation or grant for the support, benefit or in aid of sectarian schools. The editor, commenting 626 on the constitutional provisions mentioned, and others where they are silent upon the matter of sectarianism, says: "In view of the above decisions and constitutional provisions, we conclude that the words used in the several constitutions in point, where the language does not expressly so indicate, must have been intended by the people who ratified them to provide against the promulgation or teaching of the distinctive doctrines, creeds, or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect in schools or institutions where such instruction was to be paid for out of the public funds, or aided by such funds or by public grants, and that a school or institution is sectarian when the doctrines or tenets of some particular faith, sect, or religion are taught Am. St. Rep., Vol. 117--39

to the exclusion of others; and especially so where a school or institution has a distinctive or strict denominational name descriptive or indicative of the fundamental doctrines of the sect to which it belongs; or where a school or institution is under the exclusive control of a sect having such name, and by a course of instruction excluding all others, seeks to inculcate its tenets alone, it is then sectarian; and it makes no difference that pupils of all sects, denominations, and religious beliefs, or those of no belief, are permitted the advantages of such school or institution. It is what is taught that is the determining factor."

This brings us to the consideration of the authorities relied on by appellant.

State v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177, 20 Am. St. Rep. 41, 44 N. W. 967, 7 L. R. A. 330, is the principal case cited. The questions there presented were whether the reading of selected portions of the King James translation of the Bible during school hours violated the rights of conscience, compelled complainants to 627 aid in support of a place of religious worship, and was sectarian instruction. All three propositions were decided in the affirmative. The decision is apparently against the weight of authority. The court seemed to realize as much, if they should be regarded as all bearing on the same principle. Speaking of them, but not discussing them in detail, the court said: "A number of cases in different states, supposed to have a bearing upon the main question here considered and determined (to wit, whether the King James version of the Bible is a sectarian book), have been cited, and quotations made therefrom at considerable length by the respective counsel and by the circuit judge overruling the demurrer to the answer. None of the states in which those decisions were made seem to have in their constitution a direct prohibition of sectarian instruction in the public schools. It is believed that this state was the first which expressly embodied the prohibition in its fundamental law, and we are not aware of any direct adjudication of the question under consideration."

The court seems to turn the case upon the fact that the King James version, "the whole of it," was used as a reading book in the school. The opinion admits that text-books founded upon or containing extracts from the Bible might be properly used. It was even said: "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 instruction of the pupils. Much of it has great historical and literary value, which may be thus utilized without violating the constitutional prohibition. It 628 may also be used to inculcate good morals-that is, our duty 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 New Testament, which reaffirms and emphasizes the moral obligations laid down in the Ten Commandments." With profound respect to the supreme court of Wisconsin, we are nevertheless unable to see how its position can be maintained logically. For it takes no notice of the conscientious conviction of the Jews, or nonbelievers, any of whom may have as valid objection to the use of any part of the New Testament as Roman Catholic citizens have to the King James version. It seems to narrow the question down to matter of canonical approval of the printed volumes. The court does not attempt to argue, nor do we see how it could be maintained, that that fact alone could make a book sectarian which in its matter was not inherently so.

The next case is State v. Schere, 65 Neb. 853, 91 N. W. 846, 93 N. W. 169, 59 L. R. A. 927. The constitution of Nebraska provides: "No sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or institution supported in whole or in part, by the public funds set apart for educational purposes." The action complained of was the reading of selections and extracts from the "King James version or translation of the Bible," and the singing of certain religious and sectarian songs, and the offering of prayer to the Deity. The court said: "We do not think it wise or necessary to prolong a discussion of what appears to us an almost selfevident fact that exercises such as are complained of by the relator in this case both constitute religious worship and are sectarian in their character, within the meaning of the constitution. Nor do we feel inclined to make what 629 might be looked upon as a spurious exhibition of learning by quoting at length from the many judicial decisions and utter

ances of eminent men in this country concerning the subject. Perhaps the case most nearly in point, because of similarity both of facts involved and constitutional enactments construed to the case at bar, is State v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177, 20 Am. St. Rep. 41, 44 N. W. 967, 7 L. R. A. 330."

It is undeniably the peculiar province of the supreme courts of the states to place final authoritative construction upon the constitutions of their respective states in matters involving solely their internal policy. Whether the reasons given by the court are sound or not is not material as affecting the binding force of the construction upon citizens and others whose actions come up for consideration by the government of that state. But where the opinion is cited abroad as persuasive argument why its conclusions should be elsewhere adopted, it is of the first importance that its reasoning should be sound. That similar provisions, or the same principle of law, have frequently come before other high courts of last resort, and been by them decided in a certain way, is a fact that cannot safely be ignored. It is more than likely that general concurrence of judicial opinion on the same subject is apt to be right. Due deference to the enlightened judgment of the learned profession of the law, and to all concerned, leaves no alternative but to consider all that has been said by courts of equal rank upon a subject of such universal importance as to have been incorporated in some form in every constitution of the states of America. Two of the judges of the supreme court of Nebraska confined their concurrence to the point of "sectarian instruetion." On petition for rehearing the chief justice 630 filed a response on behalf of the court. The only case admitted to have a direct bearing on the question opposing the court's conclusions was the Michigan case cited above. But we observe what appears to us to be a modification of the original opinion in parts of the response. After pointing out that there are admittedly verbal differences between the King James and the Douay translations of the Bible, which some sectarians regard as material, the court said: "But the fact that the King James translation may be used to inculcate sectarian doctrines affords no presumption that it will be so used. The law does not forbid the use of the Bible in either version in the public schools. It is not proscribed either