The Edgerton Bible Case

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Decides

The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the case on March 18, 1890. Chief Justice William P. Lyons gave the opinion for the unanimous five-member court, while Justices John B. Cassoday1 and Harlow S. Orton2 added concurring opinions further supporting the remarks of Lyons. For present purposes I offer here only excerpts from the Lyons opinion.

Supreme Court 1893

Lyons begins: It best comports with the gravity and importance of the case to fully consider and determine it upon the merits, to the end that the controversy which has grown out of the practice complained of be put at rest in this state. Hence no narrow or technical construction of the pleadings should prevail which will defeat or postpone a final adjustment of the controversy. The first question is: is reading from the Bible without comment instruction? Is the answer is yes, then the second question is: is reading from the King James Version of the Bible sectarian instruction or not? The answer is not to be found in historical legal documents or educational practices, nor in asserting religious dogmas as ultimate truths; the case must be decided under the constitution and laws of this state now in force.

Lyons continues: In answer to the first question, that reading from the Bible in schools, although unaccompanied by comment from the teacher, is “instruction,” seems to us too clear for argument. Some of the most valuable instruction a person can receive may be derived from reading alone, without any extrinsic aid by way of comment or exposition.

Lyons continues: Sectarian instruction as understood by our constitution refers exclusively to instruction in religious doctrines that are sectarian in the sense that the doctrine is believed by some religious sects and is rejected by others. Hence, to teach the existence of a Supreme Being, of infinite wisdom, power and goodness and that it is the highest duty of all mankind to love and obey Him is not sectarian because all religious sects so believe and teach. Instruction is sectarian only if it goes beyond this.

Lyons continues: Reading from the New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible necessarily does go beyond this to become sectarian instruction at least because members of the Jewish sect reject the divine authority of the New Testament and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints sect use the Book of Mormon. Some of the portions read [by in class by Edgerton teachers] inculcate doctrines of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the punishment of the wicked after death, which doctrines are not accepted by some religious sects. A most forceful demonstration of the accuracy of this statement is to be found in certain reports of the American Bible Society of its work in Catholic countries...in which instances are given of the conversion of several persons from “Romanism” through the reading of Scripture alone; that is to say, the reading of the Protestant or King James Version of the Bible converted Catholics to protestants without the aid of comment or exposition. In those cases the reading of the Bible certainly was sectarian instruction. Therefore, it is sectarian also in Edgerton schools.

Lyons continues: This great state was founded by and is inhabited by Catholics, Jews and adherents of many Protestant sects and was the first to incorporate a provision in its constitution prohibiting sectarian instruction in the common schools. These immigrants were cordially welcomed, and it is manifest the convention framed the constitution with reference to attracting them to Wisconsin. Many, perhaps most, of these immigrants came from countries in which a state religion was maintained and enforced, while some of them were non-conformists and had suffered…from their rejection of the established religion. What more tempting inducement to cast their lot with us could have been held out to them than the assurance that, in addition to the guaranties of the right of conscience and worship in their own way, the free district schools in which their children were to be, or might be, educated, were absolute common ground, where the pupils were equal, where the sectarian instruction, and with it, sectarian intolerance, under which they had smarted in the old country, could never enter? The state constitution thus provided that the child of the Jew, or Catholic, or Unitarian, or Universalist, or Quaker should not be compelled to listen to the stated reading of passages of scripture which are accepted by others as giving the lie to the religious faith and belief of their parents and themselves?

Lyons continues: It matters not that the children may leave during the Bible reading, for the practice in question tends to destroy the equality of pupils which the constitution seeks to establish and protect, and puts a portion of them to serious disadvantage in many ways with respect to the others. Such a student is liable to be regarded with aversion and subjected to reproach and insult. This too reveals the sectarian nature of the reading.

Lyons concludes: Therefore, we rule in favor of the parents. Teachers in the common schools of Wisconsin are not to read from the Bible during school hours. The priceless truths of the Bible are best taught to our youth in the church, the Sabbath and parochial schools, the social religious meetings, and above all by parents in the home circle. There, those truths may be explained and enforced, the spiritual welfare of the child guarded and protected, and his spiritual nature directed and cultivated, in accordance with the dictates of parental conscience.

There are two important facts to note about this decision before proceeding further. First, the reader should note well that the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of religion are entirely omitted from this decision; it is analyzed solely with regard to state law. Why? Because at the time, the First Amendment was thought applicable only to “Congress,” meaning the U.S. House and Senate. It was not until 1925, more than 120 years after the First Amendment was adopted with the Bill of Rights in 1791, that the U.S. Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to state laws through the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

Second, note also that the Wisconsin state constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech (Article 1, Section 3) is entirely omitted from this decision. The court does not even consider the teacher’s exercise of free speech. Why? One can only speculate since the court does not address the issue. Perhaps they believed the teacher had no right to impose their own personal religious beliefs on a “captive audience.” The decision leaves teachers free to speak their religious opinions outside of the classroom, though not within it, in the same way the other court decisions have left teachers free to speak racist or sexist beliefs outside of the classroom, though not within it. Or they may also have believed that free speech claims were a “Trojan Horse” designed to smuggle sectarian religious instruction into public schools.

For many reasons, the court’s decision was very controversial and received national attention. As you would expect, some supported the decision while others criticized it. I provide brief examples of each kind of reaction here through two newspaper editorials.

New York Independent:3 We presume that there is not a Protestant in Wisconsin who would hesitate a moment on the point, if the book read had been the Douay version of the Bible, which is acceptable to the Catholics, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. The reading of such a book as a part of school exercises, whether for worship or religious instruction, would be offensive to Protestants, and they would have good cause for complaint.

Chicago Inter-Ocean:4 The decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin…has created grave surprise. This is an age distinguished by its liberalism; orthodox people read ‘Robert Elsmore;’ nationalists and socialists read and admire the strong individualism of Tolstoi; everybody who pretends to general information knows something of Darwin or Huxley…..The doctrinal epistles might perhaps be well left out of school exercises, but …[it] is not in the doctrinal chapters that the highest eloquence of Scripture is reached. It is in the historical and moralistic portions of the Bible that men take most delight….It seems as unjust and as illiberal to exclude the oration of Paul upon mars Hill from the text books of the free schools as to exclude a description of the death of Socrates or an extract from Cicero against Catiline. Religion apart, it is as needful that a child should learn something about the origin and philosophy of the ancient Jews as he should learn something about the history of Rome or Greece.

Notes

1 Cassoday analyzes and rejects the School Board’s argument from religious and legal tradition and separates this Wisconsin case from similar cases in other states, including Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379; Ferriter v. Tyler, 48 Vt. 444; Moore v. Monroe, 64 Iowa 367; and Millard v. Board, 121 Ill. 297.

2 Orton cites and applies further Wisconsin laws showing “how completely this state, as a civil government, and its civil institutions, are divorced from all possible connection or alliance with any and all religions, religious worship, religious establishments, or modes of worship, and with everything of a religious character or pertaining to religion…” including Article I, Sections 18, “The right of every man to worship God Almighty according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship;…nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.”

3 July 19, 1890.

4 March 22, 1890.