the schools, otherwise our whole common school system is a failure and the vast sum of money, that the American people so cheerfully pay for the education of their youth, will be wasted. For this reason I say to you that it is the duty of the jury to sustain a teacher in all proper efforts to attain the object for which he is employed. I can conceive how two courses are open to a teacher. He can, if he pleases, avoid friction, in his school by allowing the pupils to do as they please and draw his pay and go away contented. The conscientious teacher will not do this, but he will attempt to bring his school up to the standard that is expected of him. He will attempt to secure good order in the school and attention to the studies in which the pupils are engaged. That is his duty, and a teacher who attempts or tries to perform that duty deserves not only the commendation of the patrons of the school and parents of the children, but the support of a traverse jury in case he is wrongfully accused of undue severity in the punishment of a pupil. Therefore, unless this teacher acted maliciously or punished the boy with cruelty or from wicked motives he should be acquitted. If, however, you believe that he acted maliciously toward this boy, or he punished him with cruelty or from wicked motives, then you can convict him.43 Offences out of school. 604. The jurisdiction and authority of the teacher over the pupil are neither limited by the school house walls, nor to the time the school is actually in session. As a general rule, in all matters legitimately connected with the schools and the manners and morals of the scholars, the teacher's jurisdiction, conjointly with that of the parent, commences when the pupils leave the parents' roof and control to go to school, and continue until their return from school. The teacher, however, is not responsible for the misconduct of pupils on the way to and from school, though he has the right to punish for such misconduct, when brought to his knowledge.4 43. Commonwealth vs. Ebert, 3 Pa. J. L. Rep. 252, 1901. 44. School Laws and Decisions, page 153, 1903. Quo warranto. 605. Right to office of school teacher must be settled by quo warranto, not by mandamus.45 45. Commonwealth vs. Risser, 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 196, 1896. SECTARIANISM. 606. Appearances of sectarianism........... 607. Wearing of any religious dress or emblem prohibited... 608. Penalties for violation of provisions of this act.. 609. Use of school houses....... PAGE 276 276 276 277 610. Reading of the Holy Scriptures is not sectarian instruction..... 277 Appearances of sectarianism. 606. Whereas, It is important that all appearances of sectarianism should be avoided in the administration of the public schools of this Commonwealth.' Wearing of any religious dress or emblem prohibited. 607. No teacher in any public school of this Commonwealth shall wear in said school or whilst engaged in the performance of his or her duty as such teacher any dress, mark, emblem or insignia indicating the fact that such teacher is a member or adherent of any religious order, sect or denomination.2 Penalties for violation of provisions of this act. 608. In case of violation of the provisions of the first section of this act by any teacher employed in any of the public schools of this Commonwealth, notice of which having been previously given to the school board employing such teacher that it shall be the duty of such school board to permanently suspend such teacher for employment in such school for the term of one year, and in case of a second offense by the same teacher it shall be the duty of said school board to permanently disqualify such teacher from teaching in said school, and any public school director failing to comply with the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable, upon conviction of the first offence, by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, and in case of a second conviction or the violation of the provisions of this act, the offending school director shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and shall be deprived of his or her office as a public school director. A person thus twice convicted. shall not be eligible to appointment or election as a director of any public school in this state within the period of five years from the date of his or her second conviction.3 Use of school houses. 609. It shall be lawful for school boards to grant the use of school houses for lyceum and other literary purposes, non-sectarian, in their respective school districts.4 Reading of Holy Scriptures is not sectarian instruction. 610. Judge Edwards said: It is worthy of comment and reflects creditably upon the good sense of the people of Pennsylvania that, although our common school system has been in existence for many years, and that, as a general rule, in a large number of school districts throughout the state, portions of the Holy Scriptures have been read as a part of the daily opening exercises, nobody up to this time has taken such interest in the question as to secure a decision upon it from our court of last resort. Neither have the courts of common pleas been called upon to decide the question, as far as we can ascertain, except in one instance viz., in Mercer County, in the case of Hart et al. vs. The School District, &c., 2 Lanc. Law Rev. 346, in which the judge writes an elaborate opinion, his views coinciding with ours. Nevertheless, a case of this kind is interesting and important, especially as a study of the principles of government so far as they relate to the individual rights of citizens. The questions involved have produced a wide variance of opinions among learned men. Eminent judges and appellate courts have reached different conclusions; the resources of ripe scholarship, with the keenest logic and the most elaborate research, have been displayed and used in the elucidation of these questions. The sections of the constitution which the plaintiff claims are being violated by the reading of the Bible in the public schools are the following: 3. Act June 27, 1895, Sec. 2, P. L. 395. 4. Act April 11, 1901, P. L. 78. Article I., Sec. 3.-All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. Article X., Sec. 2.-No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school. The objections may be thus briefly stated: (1) the reading of the Bible in the public schools is in violation of the rights of conscience; (2) it involves compulsory support of a place of worship; and (3) it is sectarian instruction. We shall only incidentally discuss the first and second objections. The first was not strenuously urged upon us, by counsel, although we deem it worthy of great consideration; and the second is untenable on any reasonable ground. The third is the objection which is the subject of the most serious contention. We shall not consider these objections seriatim, but shall briefly state some of the general principles which underlie and ought to control the decision of the question before us in the light of Pennsylvania jurisprudence. It must be considered that Christianity, which is the religion of the Bible, and the Bible itself, occupy a unique position in the early and subsequent history of Pennsylvania. In the year 1700 it was enacted that "Whoever shall speak loosely thereof and profanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or Scriptures of Truth, and is thereof legally convicted, shall forfeit and pay five pounds and be imprisoned for five days in the house of correction." This law in substance is in force to-day. When a case involving the application of this law was before the Supreme Court in 1824, Updegraph vs. Com. 11 S. & R. 393, it was then declared that Christianity is part of the common law of Pennsylvania, and that to maliciously vilify |