State v. Frazier
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Citation | 173 P. 35,102 Wash. 369 |
Docket Number | 14515. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. DEARLE et al. v. FRAZIER, Superintendent of Schools, et al. |
Decision Date | 10 May 1918 |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C Bell, Judge.
Proceedings by the State, on the relation of Albert M. Dearle and another, for a writ of mandate against C. R. Frazier, as superintendent of Schools of School District No. 24, of Snohomish County, and J. B. Meyers and others, as School Board of said district. Decree for relators, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Lloyd L. Black, Clifford Newton, and John Sandidge, all of Everett for appellants.
Wm. A Johnson, of Everett, for respondents.
This cause is one brought by the petitioners below, respondents on this appeal, to compel appellants by writ of mandate to give petitioners an examination in the course of Bible study, and to compel appellants to give them high school credits for graduation for such Bible study.
1 Opinions of the Attorney General, 142.
Two provisions of our state Constitutions to which the Attorney General has attended, and which have a bearing upon our present discussion are as follows:
The question calling for this opinion was:
'Can a teacher employed in the common schools of this state, without violating any law of the state, or any provision of the state Constitution, conduct devotional or religious exercises at the opening of the school day, or during any part of the school day as prescribed by law, by the singing of hymns or other sacred music, or by reading passages from the Bible, without comment, or by repeating or causing to be repeated, without comment, what is usually known as the Lord's Prayer?'
This opinion has ever been regarded as fair interpretation of the intent of the framers of our Constitution and of the people who adopted it. It has been twice followed by succeeding Attorneys General. Op. Atty. Gen. 1909-1910, 135; Op. Atty. Gen. 1915-1916, 254. In the first instance the query was:
'Has a teacher the legal right to open school each morning with a prayer?
In the second instance in answer to the query:
'May the directors or a school district prescribe a course of Bible study for high school students and grant school credits to apply toward graduation from such high schools to students who successfully pass examinations upon such course of Bible study, provided that such Bible study shall be optional and shall be pursued outside of the public school money, and that no part of the public school money, time or property be used in conducting such courses'
--the Attorney General held that:
'The legal objection to the proposed system of Bible study is that the courses of study are made a part of the public school curriculum.'
Many people sincerely believe that a cultivation of religious sentiment, which we may admit is essential to the development of an enlightened citizenship, should be a part of the education and training of the children of our country, and they as firmly believe that the version of the Bible which is accepted and acknowledged by the great majority of the citizens of this country should be made the vehicle of that development. They believe that the Constitution can have no application, unless an attempt is made to advance the doctrine of a particular denomination, or to instill the dogma of sect in the mind of the pupil. Consequently it has been resolved by assemblies of teachers in this country and other countries that a course in Bible study should be a part of school work. In 1915 the state board of education adopted the following resolution:
'Since the board looks with favor upon allowing credits for Bible study done outside of school, it is moved that a committee be appointed to consider a plan for allowing such credits, one-half credit to be given for Old Testament, and one-half credit for New Testament, on the basis of thirty to thirty-two credits for high school graduation, and that a syllabus of Bible study be issued under the auspices of the state department of education with rules and regulations for the distribution of examination questions at least once a year.'
The plan thus outlined is in effect, so we are informed by counsel, in Spokane, Tacoma, Centralia, Sunnyside, and Everett, from whence this case comes. To make the plan feasible, and to avoid the rock of the Constitution as we may well presume, the school board adopted the following resolution:
Authority for this resolution is found by counsel in the resolution of the state board of education, and in the Code:
Rem. Code, § 4509.
Counsel for respondent bases his argument upon two propositions:
The first premise will be dismissed, not because it will not bear argument, for there is much argument and authority on either side, but because the case can be determined by reference to the second premise alone. The framers of the Constitution were not content to declare that our public schools should be kept free from sectarian control or influence; they went further and made it certain that their declaration should not be overcome by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bd. of Educ. of Baltimore County v. Wheat, 58.
...632; State v. Weedman, 55 S.D. 343, 226 N.W. 348; Synod of Dakota v. State, 2 S.D. 366, 50 N.W. 632, 14 L.R.A. 418; State v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35, L.R.A. 1918F, 1056; State v. District Board of School Dist., 76 Wis. 177, 44 N.W. 967, 7 L.R.A. 330, 20 Am.St.Rep. 41; State ex rel......
-
State ex rel. Finger v. Weedman, 6130.
...word “religious” in the place of the word “sectarian” in section 16, supra. These words, however, are not synonymous. State v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35, L. R. A. 1918F, 1056; 2 Schofield, Constitutional Law and Equity, 497; Oxford Dictionary; Webster's New International Dictionary.......
-
Engel v. Vitale
...supra, note 148. 157 State ex rel. Weiss v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177, 44 N.W. 967, 7 L.R.A. 330; State ex rel. Dearle v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35, L.R.A.1918F, 158 Use of the Bible generally for other than sectarian instruction was permitted in State ex rel. Freeman v. Scheve, s......
-
Malyon v. Pierce County, 63664-8
...comprehensive' " in the area of public education. Witters II, 112 Wash.2d at 370, 771 P.2d 1119 (citing State ex rel. Dearle v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 375, 173 P. 35 (1918)). We agree with the Court of Appeals that "[t]he language of section 11 alone virtually demands an interpretation dif......