Religious rights as sacred as rights to life and property. "Protec tion means Discovery of truths. knowledge, which is the handmaid of good government, as well as of true religion and morality. It means that a man's right to his own religious convictions, and to impart them to his own children, and his and their right to engage, in conformity thereto, in harmless acts of worship toward the Almighty, are as sacred in the eye of the law as his rights of person or property, and that although in the minority, he shall be protected in the full and unrestricted enjoyment thereof. The "protection" guaranteed by the section in question, means protection to the minority. The majority can protect itself. Constitutions are enacted for the very purpose of protecting the weak against the strong; the few against the many. As with individuals, so with governments, the most valuable truths are often discovered late in life; and when discovered, their simplicity and beauty make us wonder that we had not known them before. Such is the character and history of the truth here spoken of. At first sight it seems to lie deep; but [*252] on close examination, we find it to be only *a new Christian principles. How to overcome error. Spiritual warfare. Let phase or application of a doctrine with which true religion everywhere abounds. It is simply the doctrine of conquering an enemy by kindness. religious sects adopt it toward each other. If you desire people to fall in love with your religion, make it lovely. If you wish to put down a false religion, put it down by kindness, thus heaping coals of fire on its head. You cannot put it down by force; that has been tried. To make the attempt, is to put down your own religion, or to abandon it. Moral and spiritual conflicts cannot be profitably waged with carnal weapons. When so carried on, the enemy of truth and right is too apt to triumph. Even heathen writers have learned and taught this golden truth. Buddha says: "Let a man overcome anger by love, evil by good, the greedy by liberality, and the slanderer by a true and upright life." Christianity is full of this truth, and, as a moral code, might be said to rest upon it. It is in hoc signo, by the use of such weapons, that Christianity must rule, if it rules at all. Truths of Buddha. Prejudices of humanity. Tendency of civilization. We are all subject to prejudices, deeper and more fixed on the subject of religion than on any other. Each is, of course, unaware of his own prejudices. A change of circumstances often opens our eyes. No Protestant in Spain, and no Catholic in this country, will be found insisting that the government of his residence shall support and teach its own religion to the exclusion of all others, and tax all alike for its support. If it is right for one government to do so, then it is right for all. Were Christians in the minority here, I apprehend no such a policy would be thought of by them. This is the existing policy of most governments in the world. Christian countries, however, are fast departing from it - witness Italy, Prussia, Spain, England. The true doctrine on the subject is the doctrine of peaceful disagreement, of charitable forbearance, and perfect impartiality. Three men say, a Christian, an infidel, and a Jew - ought to be able to carry on a government for their common benefit, and yet leave the religious doctrines and worship of each unaffected thereby, otherwise than by fairly and impartially protecting each, and aiding each in his *searches after truth. If [253] they are sensible and fair men, they will so carry on their government, and carry it on successfully, and for the benefit of all. If they are not sensible and fair men, they will be apt to quarrel about religion, and, in the end, have a bad government and bad religion, if they do not destroy both. Surely they could well and safely carry on any other business, as that of banking, without involving their religious Right principle. Nature of government. Erroneous claims. Only just method. These principles not new. opinions, or any acts of religious worship. Government is an organization for particular purposes. It is not almighty, and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government. Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction from the schools would be to put them under the control of "infidel sects." This is by no means So. To teach the doctrines of infidelity, and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing; and to give no instructions on the subject is quite another thing. The only fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to let each sect give its own instructions, elsewhere than in the State schools, where of necessity all are to meet; and to put disputed doctrines of religion among other subjects of instruction, for there are many others, which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and safely be taught elsewhere. Our charitable, punitive, and disciplinary institutions stand on an entirely different footing. There the State takes the place of the parent, and may well act the part of a parent or guardian in directing what religious instructions shall be given. The principles here expressed are not new. They are the same, so far as applicable, enunciated by this court in Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio State, 387, and in McGatrick v. Wason, 4 Ohio State, 566. They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions. Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the United States than any other man, [*254] and *whose purity of life and orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says: Statements of Madison. Religion is not within the purview of human government." And again he says: "Religion is Religion exempt from government. essentially distinct from human government, and exempt from its cognizance. A connection between cognizance of them is injurious to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of relig- Support ion without the aid of law."1 of religion. A favorite doctrine with In his letter to Governor Livingston, July 10, 1822, he says: "I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite doctrine with me.' I have made this opinion exceptionally and labori- Madison. ously long. I have done so in the hope that I might thereby aid in bringing about a harmony of views and a fraternity of feeling between different classes of society, who have a common interest in a great public institution of the State, which, if managed as sensible men ought to manage it, I have no doubt, will be a principal instrumentality in working out for us what all desire the best form of government and and good the purest system of religion. I ought to observe that, in our construction of the first named of the two resolutions in question, especially in the light of the answer of the Board, we do not understand that any of the "readers," so called, or other books used as mere lesson-books, are excluded from the schools, or that any inconvenience from the necessity of procuring new books will be occasioned by the enforcement of the resolutions. It follows that the judgment of the Superior Court will be reversed, and the original petition dismissed. Judgment accordingly. 1 Ante page 204. 2 Ante page 201. In the same letter he declared: "We are teaching the world . . . that religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with, the aid of government." Good government religion. of the court. America's lesson. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. OCTOBER TERM, 1874. DECISION RELATIVE TO LIMITATIONS OF STATE AND All governmental power limited. Commonlaw limitations. Principles of American law. Individual liberty. There is no such thing in the theory of our governments, State and national, as unlimited power in any of their branches. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments are all of limited and defined powers. 1 Citizens' Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland v. Topeka, 87 United States Supreme Court reports, 20 Wallace, 655. This case has been quoted and requoted since by the courts of the United States, and has thus now become the unquestioned statement of the law. See Lothrop v. Stedman, decided October, 1875, which says: "The power of the legislature, therefore, is not unlimited, for the private rights of persons are not subject to an unjust and despotic exercise of power by a legislature, without means of redress. 'The theory of our governments, State and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers.'" 13 Blatchford's United States reports, 142. This is no new doctrine. It has been the law ever since the birth of the nation and was clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States over a century ago. It was asserted that "the judiciary is a co-ordinate branch of the govern ment, and may declare a statute to be void, as repugnant to the constitution." Justice Chase in that case (decided August, 1798) says: "I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a State legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution, or fundamental law of the State. The people of the United States erected their constitutions or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nat ure and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. "This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or State legislature cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An act of the legislature, usurpation not for I cannot call it law, contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, Legislative law. cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law, in governments established on express compact, and on repub .can principles, must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded. "A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act which when done, was in vio |