to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports. Those matters are not in the present controversy. Our concern is with the prohibition approved by the supreme court."
Court Presents Law
In the case of Pierce et als. vs. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, decided about June 1, 1925, also by Justice McReynolds, coming up from the state of Oregon. This case also involved the right of a citizen as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution of the United States. The court, in commenting, said:
"No question is raised concerning the power of a state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise, and examine them, their teachers and pupils, to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character, and of patriotic disposition, that certain studies, plainly essential to good citizenship, must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is inimical to the public welfare.
"Under the doctrine of Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U S., Page 390, we think it is entirely plain that the act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights granted by the constitution may not be breached by legislation, which has no reasonable relation to some other purpose than the competency of the statutes. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in the United States repose, precludes the general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
In the Meyer case the statute, in part, provided:
"No person individually, or as a teacher, shall in any private, denominational or parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language."
In passing on the constitutionality of this statute, the court held it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. But this act is, as is apparent from its reading, applied to all schools in the state of Oregon, and an obedience to its provisions would have made it impossible for any child, regardless of its nationality, ancestry and purposes in life, to have been taught by any teacher any subject, except in the English language, and I think the court properly held that this was an infringement upon the rights of individuals living in that state; but, as above indicated, it will be observed that the court in passing upon this act, observed, "the power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulations for schools, including a requirement that they shall give instruction in English," is not questioned. Nor has challenge been made of the "state's power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports."
It is true that the last quotation above referred to would be classed, in legal parlance, as dictum.
In the case of Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, etc., the act required the children of the state of Oregon to attend public schools, in which the court said that "the child is not the mere creature of the state, and those who nurture him and direct his destiny have a right, coupled with high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
In the Oregon case, the Nebraska case is referred to without any suggestion or intimation that the dictum therein is not good law.
Leeper Again
In the case of Leeper vs. The State, reported in 19th Pickle, page 500, wherein it was insisted that the act involved therein was unconstitutional under Section 8 of Article 1 of the constitution of the state of Tennes-
