State v. Showalter
| Decision Date | 12 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | 22876. |
| Citation | 293 P. 1000,159 Wash. 519 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CLITHERO et al. v. SHOWALTER, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Original mandamus proceeding by the State, on the relation of George I. Clithero and others, against N.D. Showalter, as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and others.
Writ denied, and action dismissed.
John H Dunbar and E. W. Anderson, both of Olympia, for respondents.
Relators by their petition and motion for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, filed as an original proceeding in this court, show that on September 9, 1930, they filed a petition with the state board of education asking the board to enter and promulgate an order requiring:
'(a) That the Holy Scriptures known as the Bible, be read at least once each and every school day in each and every public common school, high school and other schools of the State Public School System of the State of Washington.
'(b) That instruction be given in the Holy Scriptures known as the Bible, on at least two school days each school week in each and every public common school, high school and other schools of the State Public School System of the State of Washington.
'(c) That such reading and teaching of the Holy Scriptures known as the Bible be made compulsory in the curriculum of each and all of said above mentioned schools of the State Public School System of the State of Washington.
'(d) That such other use be made of the Bible as part of the public education inculcated that is in harmony with the right and justice in behalf of the citizen, the Nation and its ordained federal and state governments, and tending to national unity and perpetuity, under the nation founders covenant, mutual compact and dedicated life, fortune and sacred honor to the nation, as comprehended in the Declaration of Independence:
'(1) As to Bible taught will and attributes of man's 'Creator' and endower with 'inalienable rights';
'(2) As to the appeal to their 'Creator' as the 'Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.'
'(3) As to the citizen and nation 'firm reliance on the protection' of their Creator and nation founder referred to as 'Divine Providence.'
'(4) As to citizen mutual compact, and dedication of life, fortune and Sacred Honor for national support, unity and perpetuity under and within the scope of that national foundation document;
'(5) As to reasons and necessity for all sound ordained and enacted laws to conform, uphold and yield to this nation founding covenant, and to the spirit and principles thereof, rooted and grounded in the Bible and exercised under the English Common law rules and our sound laws.
'(e) That all proper, necessary and convenient actions be taken and had to put into effect and operation all of the aforegoing, with all orderly speed, and your petitioner will ever pray as in duty bound.'
That on September 26, 1930, the board acted on that petition as follows:
Construing this as a refusal to act upon their petition, the relators ask us to issue a writ of mandate commanding the following: (1) That the board vacate and rescind its action of September 26; (2) that it be required to receive and file relators' petition of September 9; (3) that the board consider and grant the prayer of that petition; and (4) that the board be ordered to promulgate appropriate rules and regulations by which its action in granting the prayer of the petition can be carried into full force and effect.
The respondents have appeared by demurrer to the petition and motion based upon the following grounds: (1) That the relators have no legal capacity to sue, (2) that this court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and (3) that the facts stated are insufficient to constitute a cause of action or to entitle relators to any relief by writ of mandamus, or otherwise.
We might very well sustain the demurrer upon the first ground because it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witters v. State Com'n for the Blind
...federal courts interpreting the federal establishment clause. See State ex rel. Dearle v. Frazier, supra; State ex rel. Clithero v. Showalter, 159 Wash. 519, 293 P. 1000 (1930); Visser v. Nooksack Valley School Dist. 506, 33 Wash.2d 699, 207 P.2d 198 (1949). However, this court has also ado......
-
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp Murray Iii v. Curlett, s. 142 and 119
...55 S.D. 343, 226 N.W. 348 (1929); State ex rel. Dearle v. Frazier, 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35 (1918); cf. State ex rel. Clithero v. Showalter, 159 Wash. 519, 293 P. 1000 (1930); State ex rel. Freeman v. Scheve, 65 Neb. 853, 91 N.W. 846 (1902), modified, 65 Neb. 876, 93 N.W. 169 (1903). The ca......
-
Engel v. Vitale
...193 Cal. 54, 222 P. 801, 31 A.L.R. 1121.159 Board of Education of City of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211; State ex rel. Clithero v. Showalter, 159 Wash. 519, 293 P. 1000, appeal dismissed 284 U.S. 573, 52 S.Ct. 15, 76 L.Ed. 498.160 State ex rel. Conway v. District Board, supra, note 1......
-
Malyon v. Pierce County
...of school funds to denominational schools ... and the litigation that had occurred in other states...."); State ex rel. Clithero v. Showalter, 159 Wash. 519, 522, 293 P. 1000 (1930) (deferring to the Frazier interpretation of article I, section 11), appeal dismissed, 284 U.S. 573, 52 S.Ct. ......
-
The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Washington Constitution-a Proposal to the Supreme Court
...the "plain language" of the stricter Washington State Constitution. Id. at 632, 689 P.2d at 58. 19. 102 Wash. 369, 173 P. 35 (1918). 20. 159 Wash. 519, 293 P. 1000 21. 72 Wash. 2d 912, 436 P.2d 189 (1967). 22. 72 Wash. 2d at 919, 436 P.2d at 193. The case does, however, seem to restrict the......