teachings and extracts pervade and ornament our secular literature, and are important elements in its value and usefulness. Such text-books are in the schools for secular instruction, and rightly so; and the constitutional prohibi. tion 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 instructions of the pupils. Much of it has great historical and literary value, which may be thus utilized without violating the constitutional prohibition. It may also be used to inculcate good morals—that is, our duties 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. Concerning the fundamental principles of moral ethics, the religious sects do not disagree." As to the weight of anthority in America there is no question. The only decision directly holding the practice of reading the Bible in the public schools to be unconstitutional is the Wisconsin case already referred to. The American Encyclopedia of Law, Vol. 21, page 775, says: "The practice of opening school exercises by reading from the Scriptures has been attacked as sectarianism. Generally, however, the constitutionality of the practice has been upheld." In Maine, it was held in Donahoe vs. Richards, 38 Me. 379, that a requirement by the superintending committee that the King James version of the Bible should be read in the public schools was in violation of no constitutional provision and binding upon all members of the school, though composed of divers religious sects. In Massachusetts it was decided in Spiller vs. Woburn, 12 Allen, 127, that the committee might require the schools to be opened each morning with reading from the Bible and with prayer. In Illinois and Nevada a similar view was taken. In Iowa, Moore vs. Monroe 64 Iowa, 367, it was held that a statute providing that the Bible should not be excluded from the schools was constitutional. But the court left the use of the Bible in the school to the option of the teachers, restricted only by the provision that no pupil should be required to read it contrary to the wishes of his parents or guardians. In Ohio, in a case that was argued in the court below with more learning and more elaborately than any case on the same question in any other forum (Board of Education vs. Minor, 23 Ohio 211), the higher court refused to decide the constitutionality of the rule requiring the Bible to be read in the schools, lodging the decision of the question in the board of education, to whom the legislature had committed the exclusive management of the schools. Thus it will be seen that if the question before us is to be decided by the weight of authority, as expressed in the decision of the various states, there being only one common pleas case in Pennsylvania, it must be decided in favor of the defendants. The argument suggested by the Iowa and Ohio cases is worthy of serious consideration. The legislature has committed the management of the public schools to boards of control or boards of school directors. In conjunction with the teachers, they decide what books shall be used in the schools. Why cannot the question of reading the Bible in the public schools, as a part of the opening exercises, be left to them? This is where the question has been practically since the common school system was established in Pennsylvania. In some schools the Bible is read; in others it is not. There is no law requiring it; there is no law prohibiting it. If it is read, the constitution is not disturbed; if a board should decide that it shall not be read, why is not such action within its discretion? We are not deciding the case at bar upon the basis suggested by this argument, but we can easily see how, upon this basis, and upon this alone, the court of last resort may finally dispose of the question. Now, therefore, the above case having been fully heard in open court and argued by counsel, it is ordered and decreed that the bill of complaint in said case be dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff, and that the injunction heretofore granted be dissolved.5 5. Stevenson vs. Hanyon, 7 D. R. 585, 1898. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS. 611. Certain chiidren not allowed to attend school in the several municipalities of this Commonwealth....... PAGE 286 612. Period of exclusion. Purpose of physician's certificate......... 287 613. Duty of principal of schools........... 287 614. Right of teachers to exclude pupils for failure to be vaccinated 287 Physician's certificate of vaccination or of small-pox under Sec. 12, Act of June 18, 1895 ..... 615 288 616. Pupils must present certificate of vaccination...... 289 622. The Act of June 18, 1895, P. L. 203, is a valid exercise of the police power of the state........ 295 624. health. Power to make rules and regulations..... Abatement of nuisances..... 623. Township school board to exercise the power of board of 300 300 625. Sanitary agent...... 300 626. Duties of school directors....... ........ 301 health.......... 627. School directors may be compelled to organize as a board of 302 629. School district not liable for the employment of a physician 628. Right of school directors to exclude pupils for failure to be vaccinated.......... 631. Liability of borough for expenses incurred by the local board of health in employing a physician to vaccinate school children. Opinion by Hampton L. Carson, Attorney-General... 308 632. School board should adopt rules....... 633. Appointment of sanitary agent...... 634. Sanitary regulations of school or college buildings........... buildings to adopt a method of disinfection......... 636. Duty to disinfect..................... 637. Approval of method by board of health..... 638. Not to interfere with school session...... 639. Portion of appropriation for expenses... 640. Fine for neglect.............................. Certain children not allowed to attend school in the several munic. ipalities of this Commonwealth. 611. No child or other person belonging to, or residing with the family of any person or residing in the same house in which any person may be located who is suffering from cholera, small-pox (variola or varioloid), scarlet fever, typhus fever, yellow fever, relapsing fever, diphtheria, diphtheritic croup, membraneous croup or leprosy shall be permitted to attend any public, private, parochial, Sunday or other school in said municipalities, and all school principals, Sundayschool superintendents or other persons in charge of such schools, are hereby required to exclude any and all such children and persons from said schools.' Period of exclusion. Purpose of physician's certificate. 612. Such exclusion to continue for a period of thirty days following the discharge by recovery or death of the person last afflicted in said house or family, or his or her removal to hospital, and the thorough disinfection of the premises, and all such children or other persons as aforesaid, before being permitted to attend or return to school, shall furnish to said principal or other person in charge of said schools a certificate signed by the medical attendant of said children or persons, or by a physician to be designated by the health authorities of said municipalites, setting forth that the thirty days mentioned in this section have fully expired Provided however, That the health authorities may by rule or regulation provide that such certificates shall only be given by a person to be designated by said authorities, and in such case no other certificate shall be recognized.2 Duty of principal of schools. 613. All principals or other persons in charge of schools as aforesaid are hereby required to refuse the admission of any child to the schools under their charge or supervision, except upon a certificate signed by a physician, setting forth that such child has been successfully vaccinated, or that it has previously had small-pox.3 Right of teachers to exclude pupils for failure to be vaccinated. 614. In this case a petition was presented to court for a mandamus against A, principal of the Keystone Public School in the city of Philadelphia, to compel him to admit I. Act June 18, 1895, Sec. 11, P. L. 203. 2. Act June 18, 1895, Sec. 11, P. L. 203. 3. Act June 18, 1895, Sec. 12, P. L. 203. into the school a child of B, a giri eight years of age, without being first vaccinated as required by the Act of June 18, 1895. The court refused the mandamus for the reason that a principal of the public school in the exercise of a sound discretion may exclude pupils who have not been vaccinated.4 Physician's certificate of vaccination or of small-pox under sec. 12, act June 18, 1895. 615. The certificate required by the act is "a certificate signed by a physician." It does not say he shall be a physician of the highest attainments or qualifications. It is fair to presume that the act contemplates a "legally qualified physician." To be registered he must be a legally qualified physician under the laws of the Commonwealth. What the act required is the certificate of a physician, showing that the child has been successfully vaccinated or had small-pox. It does not prescribe the form or language the certificate shall be in. Undoubtedly the act intends that children must either have been "successfully vaccinated" or have "had smallpox" to be admitted to school. The act points out how both or either of these questions shall be determined, namely, by the certificate of a physician. It does not make school boards or teachers the judges of those questions of medical science. The power to decide those questions has not been placed with them, but where reason and common sense dictate it should be placed-with a physician. When the certificate of a physician is produced to either fact, that fact is determined for the purposes of the act. It is not required that all the physicians in a place shall unite in certifying the fact or that no physician shall be of a different opinion. It is not required that the school authorities shall be satisfied by a preponderance of medical or other evidence of the fact that in any given case a child has had small-pox. The act never contemplated that the fact must be proved to the satisfaction of the school board, or in any other way than by the certificate of a physician. The 4. Field vs. Robinson, 198 Pa. 638, 1901. |