Gambar halaman

L.R.A. (N.S.) 442, 92 N. E. 251, 19 The trial court held that the Bible Ann. Cas. 220; Hardwick v. Fruitridge in the King James version was not School Dist. 54 Cal. App. 696, 205 Pac. a publication of sectarian, partisan, 49.

or denominational character, and Mr. E. S. Page, for respondents:

accordingly gave judgment for the The Bible, in the larger sense, is

defendants. This appeal is from not a sectarian or a denominational

that judgment. book.

State ex rel. Weiss v. District Bd. The Constitution of this state 76 Wis. 177, 7 L.R.A. 330, 20 Am. St. provides (art. 1, $ 4) that "the free Rep. 41, 44 N. W. 967; Church v. Bul- exercise and enjoyment of religious lock, 104 Tex. 1, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 860, profession and worshipwithout 109 S. W. 115; Stevenson v. Hanyon, discrimination or preference, shall 7 Pa. Dist. R. 585.

forever be guaranteed in this state." The King James version, being

It prohibits (art. 4, § 30) appromerely a translation of a nonsectarian book, is not a sectarian or a

priations, grants, or payments of denominational book.

public moneys in aid of any “reliHackett v. Brooksville Graded School

gious sect, church, creed, or sectaDist. 120 Ky. 608, 69 L.R.A. 592, 117 rian purpose,” or to support or susAm. St. Rep. 599, 87 S. W. 792, 9 Ann. tain any school or other institution Cas. 36; Vidal v. Philadelphia, 2 How. "controlled by any religious creed, 127, 11 L. ed. 205; Moore v. Monroe, church, or sectarian denomination 64 Iowa, 367, 52 Am. Rep. 444, 20 N.

whatever.” In § 8 of article 9 it W. 475; Billard v. Board of Education,

provides that "no public money shall 69 Kan. 53, 66 L.R.A. 166, 105 Am. St. Rep. 148, 76 Pac, 422, 2 Ann. Cas. 521;

ever be appropriated for the supDonahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379, 61

port of any sectarian or denominaAm. Dec. 256; Spiller v. Woburn, 12

tional school, or any school not unAllen, 127; Pfeiffer v. Board of Edu- der the exclusive control of the offication, 118 Mich. 560, 42 L.R.A. 536, cers of the public schools; nor shall 77 N. W. 250; State ex rel. Freeman any sectarian or denominational v. Scheve, 65 Neb. 853, 59 L.R.A. 927, doctrine be taught, or instruction 91 N. W. 846, 93 N. W. 169; Nessle v. thereon be permitted, directly or inHum, 1 Ohio N. P. 140, 2 Ohio S. &

directly, in any of the common C. P. Dec. 60; Church v. Bullock, 104

schools of this state." Tex. 1, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 860, 109 S. W. 115, affirming Tex. Civ. App. -,

Political Code, § 1607 (subd. 3), 100 S. W. 1025.

as added by Stat. 1917, p. 736, § 6,

makes it the duty of the boards of Per Curiam:

education and school trustees "to Plaintiff brought this action to

exclude from school and school lienjoin the trustees of the Selma

braries all books, publications, or union high school district of Fresno

papers of a sectarian, partisan, or county from carrying into effect a

denominational character." resolution for the purchase of

Section 1672 of the same Code twelve copies of the Bible in the

provides that "no publication of a King James version for the library

sectarian, partisan, or denominaof the high school. George Enos

tional character must be used or diswas permitted to intervene, and filed

tributed in any school, or be made a a complaint which alleged substantially the same matters and sought any sectarian or denominational

part of any school library; nor must the same relief as that of plaintiff.

doctrine be taught therein." Both complaints rest on the conten

The question before us is differtion that the King James version of

et from those dealt with in the rethe Bible is a book of a sectarian

ported cases which consider the character, and that its purchase for question of Bible instruction in the the library of a public school is

public schools. We have examined therefore contrary to constitutional with care all decisions cited by and statutory provisions in this counsel, and all that our independstate.

ent research has discovered, and not

( Cal. 222 Pac. 801.) one of them deals with the precise was to bar from school libraries question now under consideration, books and other publications of facnamely, the placing of the Bible in tional religion—those whose chara public school library. These deci- acter is "sectarian, partisan, or sions all deal with questions grow- denominational.” As a book on aling out of the use of the Bible in most any subject may adopt a partidevotional exercises, or for religious san tone, so a book on religion, ininstruction, or as a textbook in the stead of confining itself to broad public schools; for that reason we principles and simple fundamentals, do not discuss these decisions in de- may emphasize particular pointstail in arriving at our conclusion, those upon which differences of although some of these decisions opinion have arisen. In a word, a consider and decide whether or not book on any subject may be strongthe Bible is sectarian. In our opin- ly partisan in tone and treatment.

ion, for the reasons A religious book treating its subject School-Bible in

hereafter stated, it in this manner would be sectarian. library.

is clear that for ref- But not all books of religion would erence and library purposes in the be thus excluded. The fact that it public schools, it is not a book of the was not approved by all sects of a class prohibited by our statute. particular religion, or by the fol

It will be seen from the provisions lowers of all religions, would not of our statutes above quoted that class it as sectarian for library purthey do not, in terms, exclude from poses. There is no religion that has these schools "religious" books as found universal acceptance, and such. Indeed, there is nothing in

therefore no book of religion that our statutes aimed at religious has. works. To be legally objectionable The correctness of this view of they must be "sectarian, partisan, the meaning of these Code sections or denominational in character.” It is indicated by their origin. Since is under our Code provisions that 1851 the statutes of this state have this question immediately arises, excluded books of a sectarian charand their terms must be construed acter from public school libraries. with their intent and purpose in Stat. 1851, pp. 491, 495, art. 3, § 5; view and the mischief at which Stat. 1852, pp. 117, 125, art. 6, § 3; they were aimed. The terms used Stat. 1855, pp. 229, 237, § 33; Stat. are “sectarian" and "denomination- 1863, pp. 194, 210, § 67; Štat. 1869– al.” “Sect," strictly defined, means 70, pp. 824, 835, 839, 842, SS 42, 58, “a body of persons distinguished by 71. Political Code, § 1607 (3), was peculiarities of faith and practice derived from $ 42 (subd. 11) of the from other bodies adhering to the Act of 1870, the language of which same general system" (Standard shows the class of publications in Dict.), and "denominational” is giv- the mind of the legislature. It reen much the same definition. But quired the school authorities to exthe term "sect" has frequently a clude from schools and their librabroader signification, the activities ries "books, tracts, papers or cateof the followers of one faith being chisms of a sectarian character." regarded as sectarian as related to

As originally adopted into the Code those of the adherents of another.

(Political Code, 1617, subd. 12, Since the object of these Code pro

enacted March 12, 1872) this lanvisions was to exclude controversial matters of any kind from the school

guage was shortened to “books, publibraries, in so far as that object

lications, or papers of a sectarian

character." The words "partisan could be attained by the exclusion of printed matter of partisan tend

or denominational” were inserted ency, we have no doubt that the after "sectarian" by Code Amendterm “sectarian" was used in its ments 1873–74, p. 81, and its presbroad signification.

The purpose

ent number (1607) was given the

[ocr errors]

section by an amendment in 1917 Douai version was the work of (Stat. 1917, p. 736).

Catholics, and is the translation Political Code, $ 1672, which has used by the Roman Catholic Church remained the same since its adop- in English-speaking countries. The tion in 1872, was derived from g 58 King James version and its reviof the same Act of 1870, which re- sions are the work of Protestants, ferred to "books, tracts, papers, and are used in Protestant churches. catechisms, or other publications of The contention that the Bible in a sectarian or denominational char- the King James translation is a acter.” Thus, we think the history book of a sectarian character rests of these sections indicates the class on the fact that there are differences of "books" and "other publications" between it and, among others, the at which the statute was aimed. Douai version; that it is of Protes

Turning to the character of the tant authorship; that it is used in King James version, it appears that Protestant churches; and that it is the original manuscripts of the not approved by the Catholic Bible have been lost for centuries. Church. According to such a test Those available for translation are the Bible in any known version or themselves “versions,” and either text is sectarian. In fact, until all copies or translations of still older sects can agree upon the manuscript texts. There have been numerous texts that should be used, no EngEnglish translations, but those most lish version of the Bible not "sectagenerally in use to-day are the King rian" in this view can be produced. James version and its subsequent The statute, however, deals with English and American revisions, publications of a sectarian characand the Douai version.

ter. It makes the character of the The Douai version consists of a book the test of whether it is "sectranslation of the New Testament tarian," not the authorship or the made in the English College at extent of its approval by different Rheims, published there in 1582, sects or by all. That the authors and of the Old Testament published of religious books belong to a sect at Douai in 1609.

or church does not necessarily make The King James version is a their books of a sectarian character. translation made at the direction of Nor does the fact that the King James I. of England, and published James version is commonly used by at London in 1611. The work was Protestant churches and not by done by a commission of forty-seven Catholics make its character sectascholars drawn largely from the rian. Its character is what it is, a universities of Oxford and Cam- widely accepted translation of the bridge. The work of its revision by Bible. What we have said of the English and American committees King James translation is equally was begun in 1870, and the revised applicable to the Douai version. New Testament published in 1881, Both are scholarly translations of and the revised Old Testament in the Bible, and neither is a book "of 1884.

a sectarian character" within the The Douai version is based upon meaning of the statute relating to the text of the Latin Vulgate, the school libraries. Both are eligible King James version on the Hebrew to a place on the shelves of our puband Greek texts. There are vari- lic school libraries for reference ances in the rendering of certain purposes. Each version has claims. phrases and passages. The Douai "Regarded merely as literature, the version incorporates the Apocrypha, King James version is a recognized which are omitted from the texts classic. For centuries it has been of the Testaments in the King the version most generally used in James version, though in many edi- Protestant churches in England and tions they have been printed be- America. The Douai version has tween the two Testaments. The merits of its own. It is the text ap

[ocr errors]

(- Cal. , 222 Pac, 801.) proved by one of the world's great- tion of the adoption of the theory est churches. Many children base or dogma contained therein, or any their religious education upon its approval of the book itself, except text. We do not assume to decide as a work of literature fit to be inthe comparative merits of the two cluded in a reference library. For versions. We do, however, hold aught that appears in the instant that either or both may be pur- case the library in question may alchased for and placed in a public ready contain copies of the Douai school library without violation of version of the Bible, as well as copthe law of this state.

ies of the Talmud, Koran, and If it were a fact that the King teachings of Confucius. If the DouJames version of the Bible was ai version and these other books are sought to be placed in the public not already in the library, we have school library to the exclusion of no right to assume that they will not all other versions of the Bible, or if be added thereto in the future. it appeared to be a fact that this That such action would be legal and particular version or any other ver- appropriate we have no doubt. sion of the Bible was to be used as We are not required in this case a textbook for a prescribed course to decide, nor are we to be underof study, or to be used in reading stood as deciding, the question of therefrom to the pupils as a part whether or not the use of the Bible of school exercises, it might then be for class instruction amounts to the well argued that such circumstances

teaching of sectarian or denomiamounted to an implied declaration

national doctrine, nor to consider that this version was the only true

whether or to what extent its readversion of the Scriptures, and that

ing may be made a part of the exerall others were false in so far as not in accord therewith. So used, and

cises in the schools, without offendunder such circumstances, it might ing the provisions of the state Con

stitution and statutes. be justly claimed to be used as a basis for sectarian instruction. Such The judgment is affirmed. are not the facts in the case at bar.

All concur. The mere act of purchasing a book to be added to the school library Petition for rehearing denied does not carry with it any implica February 21, 1924.


Sectarianism in schools.

The present annotation is supple- The court avoids decision as to whethmental to those in 5 A.L.R. 866, and er reading from the Bible to the 20 A.L.R. 1351.

pupils, or using it as a basis for In the reported case (EVANS v. instruction, is permissible. SELMA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST. ante, The holding in Smith v. Donahue 1121) it is held that the King James (1922) 202 App. Div. 656, 195 N. Y. version of the Bible is not a sectarian, Supp. 715, was to the effect that pubpartisan, or denominational publica- lic funds could not be used to furnish tion, and that the mere placing of textbooks and other school supplies copies thereof in a public school to parochial or other private schools. library is not contrary to the Con- It appeared that the defendants, memstitution and statute of California re- bers of the board of education, were lating to religious toleration and re- furnishing textbooks and other school quiring the school authorities to ex- supplies to certain parochial schools clude from the public schools and maintained and controlled by the school libraries all books, publica- Roman Catholic Church and independtions, or papers of a sectarian, parti- ent of the public school system. In

denominational character. support of the holding the court de



clared that it was the policy of the other than the public schools. The law, both by Constitution and statute, evidence showed that some of the not to join religious instruction with school children who were being transsecular education in the private ported a considerable distance to schools, and that accordingly the

school were carried to a parochial state, or a subdivision thereof, could

school. The court said that the scope not assist the parochial schools maintained for the purpose of furthering

and purpose of the free education a distinct religious tenet.

statutes (Stat. 1921, § 40.16, subd. 1, c) In State ex rel. Van Straten v.

was to provide free nonsectarian inMilquet (1923) 180 Wis. 109, 192 N.

struction for all persons of school age, W. 392, it was held that a school and that the school board was not district could not be burdened with authorized to expend public money for the expense of transporting pupils to

any other.

R. E, La G.

J. L. BROWN et al., Appts.,


Arkansas Supreme Court - June 18, 1923.

(159 Ark. 498, 252 S. W. 18.)

Weapons — right to carry - servant on employer's premises.

Agents of a railroad company employed to guard its property are not within the exception of a statute forbidding the carrying of pistols as weapons, which permits one to carry such weapon upon his own premises. [See note on this question beginning on page 1128.]

(Smith and Hart, JJ., dissent.)

APPEAL by defendants from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Pulaski County (Wade, J.) convicting them of carrying concealed weapons. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Messrs. Edgar B. Kinsworthy and Clark v. State, 49 Ark. 174, 4 S. W. Robert E. Wiley, for appellants: 658; Kinkead v. State, 45 Ark. 536.

Defendants are within the exception Smith, J., delivered the opinion of of the statute against carrying con- the court: cealed weapons.

Appellants were tried on an State v. Terry, 93 N. C. 585, 53 Am. Rep. 472; Sanderson v. State, Tex.

agreed statement of facts and con

victed of carrying concealed weapCrim. Rep. —, 50 S. W. 348; State v. Anderson, 129 N. C. 521, 39 S. E. 824;


The substance of the agreed Lemmons v. State, 56 Ark. 559, 20 S.

statement of facts is as follows: W. 404; Clark v. State, 49 Ark. 174, 4 Each of the defendants carried a S. W. 658.

pistol as a weapon in the railroad Messrs. J. S. Utley, Attorney Gen- yards belonging to the Missouri Paeral, John L. Carter and William T.

cific Railroad Company in the city Hammock, Assistant Attorneys Gen- of North Little Rock. They were eral, for the State:

each then and there engaged in the Defendants had no right to carry the concealed weapons on the premises

performance of their duties as speof the railroad company.

cial guard in the service of the rail. 8 R. C. L. 293; State v. Terry, 93 road company for which they had N. C. 585, 53 Am. Rep. 472; State v.

been employed. Perry, 120 N. C. 582, 26 S. E. 915, 1008; The railroad company is a corpo

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »