doubt that the conclusions of the judges have always been harmonious. This has been in part owing to the differing expressions of the Constitutions and statutes being interpreted. While allowing that because of these differences in language the opinions may not appear to be precisely in point, yet they reflect the drift of judicial opinion in this country, so far as it has been expressed, concerning the main idea, -whether the Bible is a sectarian book. Likewise whether it may be read in the public schools at all. While some of the Constitutions construed in terms prohibit the use of sectarian books in the public schools, yet, independent of those provisions, it seems to be generally conceded that to teach sectarianism in a public school would be violative of religious freedom, which is guaranteed by every Constitution. With this explanation we will briefly review the decisions bearing on the subject. ing at the same time such religious tenets as their mature reason may enable them to prefer." It would be difficult to express a more fitting description of the underlying principles of our government in its treatment of the subject of public education. In construing those provisions of the will which we have quoted as bearing particularly on the subject whether the Bible and its teachings might be employed in the college by lay teachers, the court said: "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college; its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the col'ege by lay teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will that proscribes such studies. Above all, the testator positively enjoins that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.' Now, it may well be asked, What is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume? The testator has not said how these great principles are to be taught, or by whom, except it be by laymen, nor what books are to be used to explain or enforce them. All that we can gather from his language is that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all appropriate means; and, of course, including the best, the surest, and the most impressive." Two points are emphasized by the reasoning of the learned judge: (1) That is was sectarianism that was prohibited, and (2) that the Bible is not a 'sectarian book,-which are the two points most prominent in this case. One of the earliest cases, celebrated for the great learning displayed, as well as by the distinguished ability of the judge who wrote the opinion, is Vidal v. Philadelphia, 2 How. 127, 11 L. ed. 205, opinion by Mr. Justice Story. The question for decision, so far as it bears on this case, was whether a charitable bequest of the late Stephen Girard, establishing a college, prohibited the teaching of Christianity to its pupils. The will contained this restrictive clause: "I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college." The intention of the testator, so far as it was not unlawful, was as the law of the case. The question was, Did he intend to exclude the teachings of Christianity, or its being taught by the clergy? The testator himself furnished this key to his thought (p. 133 of 2 How., p. 208, 11 L. ed.): "In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitemnt which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence toward their fellow creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopt- | read the English version of the Bible, that Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379, 61 Am. Dec. 256, was an action against a school board for expelling a pupil who refused to book having been adopted by the board as one to be used by pupils in the course of the school work. We note that counsel for appellee contends that this case ought not to be regarded as authority, because there was neither statute nor constitutional prohibition on the subject of sectarian teaching. Yet the court held that "the common schools are not for the purpose of instruction in the theological doctrines of any religion or of any sect. The state regards no one sect as superior to any other, . . and, if the peculiar tenet of any particular sect were so taught, it would furnish a well-grounded cause of complaint on the part of those who entertained different or opposing religious sentiments." The court held that the King James translation of the Bible was not a sectarian book. It was said: "The Bible was used merely as a book in which instruction in reading was given. But reading the Bible is no more an interference with religious belief than would reading the my thology of Greece or Rome be regarded as interfering with religious belief or an affirmance of the Pagan creeds." In Spiller v. Woburn, 12 Allen, 127, it was held that the public-school committee did not exceed their authority in passing an order that the Bible should be read at the opening of the schools on the morning of each day. "No more appropriate method could be adopted," said the court, "of keep ing in the minds of both teachers and scholars that one of the chief objects of education, as declared by the statutes of this commonwealth, and which teachers are especially enjoined to carry into effect, is 'to impress on the minds of children and youth committed to their care and instruction the principles of piety and justice, and a sacred regard for the truth." It is not deemed necessary in this state to define by statute now the purposes of public education. They are at least as broad as the broadest under any similar system in use in any of the states. compulsion of any person to attend or support any place of religious worship, or to pay taxes to any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion; nor was it an appropriation of the public money for the benefit of any religious sect or society; nor was it a diminution of the civil rights of any person on account of his religious belief. One judge dissented from the opinion of the court. In Moore v. Monroe, 64 Iowa, 367, 52 Am. Rep. 444, 20 N. W. 475, it was shown that the teachers of the school were accustomed to occupy a few minutes each morning in reading selections from the Bible, in repeating the Lord's Prayer, and singing religious songs. The plaintiff had two children in the school, but they were not required to be present during the time thus occupied. A statute of that state provided: "The Bible shall not be excluded from any school or institution in this state, nor shail any pupil be required to read it contrary to the wishes of his parent or guardian." The Constitution of the state prohibited the legislature from passing any law interfering with the free exercise of religious worship, or com pelling any person to pay taxes to support any religion, or for building any place of worship, or the maintenance of any ministry. The plaintiff's contention was that by the use of the schoolhouse as a place for reading the Bible, repeating the Lord's | Prayer, and singing religious songs it was made a place of worship; that his children were compelled to attend a place of worship, and he, as a taxpayer, was compelled to aid in building and repairing a place of worship. The court held that the statute did not have any of the effects claimed by the plaintiff. In the absence of such a statute, a rule of the school board to the same effect could not, of course, violate the same constitutional principles, if the statute would not have done so. The supreme court of Illinois, in McCormick v. Burt, 95 Ill. 263, 35 Am. Rep. 163. Pfeiffer v. Board of Education, 118 Mich. held that a rule of the directors of a public 560, 42 L. R. A. 536, 77 N. W. 250, was school requiring the reading of a King an application to the court to compel the James edition of the Bible for fifteen minboard of education to discontinue the use utes each morning, at which, however, no of a certain book known as "Readings from one was required to be present or to particithe Bible" in the public schools of Detroit. ate in, was not unconstitutional as interThe Constitution and laws of Michigan on fering with the religious conviction of the the subject of religious freedom are sub-plaintiff and his father, who were patrons stantially as are ours, save there was no express inhibition of sectarian instruction in public schools. The question decided by the court was that Readings from the Bible, though it was used as a text-book in the school, did not violate constitutional provisions guaranteeing to everyone the right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience; nor was it a of the school, and Roman Catholics. In none of the states from which the foregoing opinions have been cited was there 'n express prohibition of the use of sectarian books. Still in all of them there was the familiar and fundamental constitutional provision guaranteeing religious freedom, which would have been violated, as was held in every instance, either in terms or by nec essary implication, by the teaching of sectarian doctrines. That such would have been the result of such teaching seems to us to be perfectly obvious. In the very learned and exhaustive note by Judge Freeman to Cook County v. Industrial School for Girls, 8 Am. St. Rep. 386 (case reported in 125 Ill. 540, 1 L. R. A. 437, 18 N. E. 183), it is shown that the Constitutions of twenty-four states contain provisions prohibiting the payment of moneys or any appropriation or grant for the support, benefit, or in aid of sectarian schools. The editor, commenting on the constitutional provisions mentioned, and others where they are silent up on the matter of sectarianism, says: "In view of the above decisions and constitutional provisions, we conclude that the words used in the several Constitutions in point, where the language does not expressly so indicate, must have been intended by the people who ratified them to provide against the promulgation or teaching of the distinctive doctrines, creeds, or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect in schools or institutions where such instruction was to be paid for out of the public funds, or aided by such funds or by public grants, and that a school or institution is sectarian when the doctrines or tenets of some particular faith, sect, or religion are taught to the exclusion of others; and especially so where a school or institution has a distinctive or strict denominational name descriptive or indicative of the fundamental doctrines of the sect to which it belongs: or where a school or institution is under the exclusive control of a sect having such name, and by a course of instruction excluding all others, seeks to inculcate its tenets alone, it is then sectarian; and it makes no difference that pupils of all sects, denominations, and religious beliefs, or those of no belief, are permitted the advantages of such school or institution. It is what is taught that is the determining factor." This brings us to the consideration of the authorities relied on by appellant. State ex rel. Weiss v. District Board. 76 Wis. 177, 7 L. R. A. 330, 20 Am. St. Rep. 41, 44 N. W. 967, is the principal case cited. The questions there presented were whether the reading of selected portions of the King James translation of the Bible during school hours violated the rights of conscience, compelled complainants to aid in support of a place of religious worship, and was sectarian instruction. All three propositions were decided in the affirmative. The decision is apparently against the weight of authority. The court seemed to realize as much, if they should be regarded as all bearing on the same principle. Speaking of them, but not discussing them in detail, the court said: "A number of cases in different states, supposed to have a bearing upon the main question here considered and determined [to wit, whether the King James version of the Bible is a sectarian book], have been cited, and quotations made therefrom at considerable length by the respective counsel and by the circuit judge overruling the demurrer to the answer. None of the states in which those decisions were made seem to have in their Constitutions a direct prohibition of sectarian instruction in the public schools. It is believed that this state was the first which expressly embodied the prohibition in its fundamental law, and we are not aware of any direct adjudication of the question under consideration." The court seems to turn the case upon the fact that the King James version, "the whole of it," was used as a reading book in the school. The opinion admits that text-books founded upon or containing extracts from the Bible might be properly used. It was even said: "The constitutional prohibition 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 instruction 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 duty 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." With profound respect to the supreme court of Wisconsin, we are nevertheless unable to see how its position can be maintained logically. For it takes no notice of the conscientious conviction of the Jews, or nonbelievers, any of whom may have as valid objection to the use of any part of the New Testament as Roman Catholic citizens have to the King James version. It seems to narrow the question down to matter of canonical approval of the printed volumes. The court does not attempt to argue, nor do we see how it could be maintained, that that fact alone could make a book sectarian which in its matter was not inherently so. The next case is State ex rel. Freeman v. Schere, 65 Neb. 853, 59 L. R. A. 927. 91 N. W. 846, 93 N. W. 169. tion of Nebraska provides: instruction shall be allowed The Constitu"No sectarion in any school or institution supported, in whole or in part,, posing the court's conclusions was the Michiby the public funds set apart for educational gan case cited above. But we observe what purposes." [Art. 8, § 11.] The action com- appears to us to be a modification of the plained of was the reading of selections and original opinion in parts of the response. extracts from the "King James's version or After pointing out that there are admittedtranslation of the Bible," and the singing of ly verbal differences between the King James certain religious and sectarian songs, and and the Douay translations of the Bible, the offering of prayer to the Deity. The which some sectarians regard as material, court said: "We do not think it wise or the court said: "But the fact that the King necessary to prolong a discussion of what | James translation may be used to inculcate appears to us an almost self-evident fact,— sectarian doctrines affords no presumption that exercises such as are complained of by that it will be so used. The law does not the relator in this case both constitute re- forbid the use of the Bible in either version ligious worship and are sectarian in their in the public schools. It is not proscribed character, within the meaning of the Consti- either by the Constitution or the statutes, tution. Nor do we feel inclined to make and the courts have no right to declare its what might be looked upon as a spurious use to be unlawful because it is possible or exhibition of learning by quoting at length probable that those who are privileged to from the many judicial decisions and utter- use it will misuse the privilege by attemptances of eminent men in this country con- ing to propagate their own peculiar theologcerning the subject. Perhaps the case most ical or ecclesiastical views and opinions. nearly in point, because of similarity both The point where the courts may rightfully of facts involved and of constitutional enact- intervene, and where they should intervene ments construed to those in the case at bar. without hesitation, is where legitimate use is State ex rel. Weiss v. District Board, 76 has degenerated into abuse,-where a teachWis. 177, 7 L. R. A. 330, 20 Am. St. Rep. er employed to give secular instruction 41, 44 N. W. 967." It is undeniably the violated the Constitution by becoming a secpeculiar province of the supreme courts of tarian propagandist. The section the states to place final authoritative con- of the Constitution which provides that no struction upon the Constitutions of their re- sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any spective states in matters involving solely school or institution supported. in whole or their internal policy. Whether the reasons in part, by the public funds set apart for given by the court are sound or not, is not educational purposes,' cannot, under any material as affecting the binding force of canon of construction with which we are acthe construction upon citizens and others quainted, be held to mean that neither the whose actions come up for consideration by Bible nor any part of it, from Genesis to the the government of that state. But where Revelation, may be read in the educational the opinion is cited abroad as persuasive ar- institutions fostered by the state." The court gument why its conclusions should be else also wisely noted that sectarian instrucwhere adopted, it is of the first importance | tion might occur from frequent reading, even that its reasoning should be sound. That without note or comment, of "judiciously similar provisions, or the same principle of selected passages," and observed that whethlaw, have frequently come before other high courts of last resort, and been by them decided in a certain way, is a fact that cannot safely be ignored. It is more than likely that a general concurrence of judicial opinion on the same subject is apt to be right. Due deference to the enlightened judgment of the learned profession of the law, and to all concerned, leave no alternative but to consider all that has been said by courts of equal rank upon a subject of such universal importance as to have been incorporated in some form in every Constitution of the states of America. Two of the judges of the supreme court of Nebraska confined their concurrence to the point of "sectarian instruction." On petition for rehearing the chief justice filed a response on behalf of the court. The only case admitted to have a direct bearing on the question op er such practices existed as amounted to sectarian instruction must be determined upon the facts of each particular case. We find ourselves in entire accord with the views quoted above from the response of the Nebraska supreme court. It was In Board of Education v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211, 13 Am. Rep. 233, the only question presented or decided was whether the school board might not prohibit the reading of the Bible in the public schools. held that they could; that nothing in the laws of that state made it compulsory upon the boards or teachers to use the Bible as a text-book. We believe the reason and weight of the authorities support the view that the Bible is not of itself a sectarian book, and, when used merely for reading in the common schools, without note or comment by teachers, is not sectarian instruction; nor does such use of the Bible make the schoolhouse a house of religious worship. The judgment of the circuit judge, having been in accord herewith, is affirmed. Cantrill, J., absent. MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. George S. ALLEN v. COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts. (188 Mass. 59.) A farmer who supports his family from the products of the farm, and for many years has sold his surplus in a neighboring town, has an established business within the meaning of a statute authorizing the con struction of a water-supply reservoir upon the site of the town, and providing com pensation for any established business there lish" is "to settle firmly or fix permanently what was before uncertain, doubtful, or disputed." Smith v. Forrest, 49 N. H. 237. Messrs. Ralph A. Stewart and Fred T. Field, for respondent: It was not the intention of the legisla ture that the term "established business," as used in Stat. 1895, chap. 488, § 14, should be construed to be synonymous with "occupation" or "employment." McKeon v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 94 Wis. 477, 35 L. R. A. 252, 59 Am. St. by destroyed, although he has no regular Rep. 909, 69 N. W. 175; State ex rel. Bragg route or customers, or anything in the nature of good will. (May 17, 1905.) v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 32 L. R. A. 520, 19 So. 909; Burnett v. Com. 169 Mass. 417, 48 N. E. 758. RESERVATION by the Supreme Judicial from time to time of the surplus products Court for Worcester County for the opinion of the full bench of a petition for compensation for destruction of an established business by the construction of a water-supply reservoir. Judgment for peti tioner. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. John S. Lynch, for petitioner: The petitioner was the owner of an established business on land in the town of West Boylston on April 1, 1895, within the meaning of § 14, chap. 488, of the Acts of 1895. "Business" is a word of large signification, and denotes the employment or occupation in which a person is engaged to procure a living. Goddard v. Chaffee, 2 Allen, 395, 79 Am. Dec. 796; Gavin v. Com. 182 Mass. 191, 65 N. E. 37; Snow v. Sheldon, 126 Mass. 332, 30 Am. Rep. 684; Harris v. Amery, L. R. 1. C. P. 148. Agriculture is a business, and one of the largest businesses carried on in the United States. Earle v. Com. 180 Mass. 583, 57 L. R. A. 292, 91 Am. St. Rep. 326, 63 N. E. 10; Gavin v. Com. 182 Mass. 191, 65 N. E. 37. The ordinary meaning of the word "estabNOTE. For a case in this series holding that a doctor having an office in, and a practice ex tending throughout, a town in which land is taken for a public purpose, is within the pro tection of a statute providing for compensation to any individual owning an established business on land within the town, which is injured by the taking, see Earle v. Com. 57 L. R. A. 292. The carrying on of a farm, and the sale thereof, do not constitute an established business. Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the court: West shall deem The question in this case is whether the petitioner owned "an established business on land" within the meaning of Stat. 1895. chap. 488, § 14, p. 573. So much of the section as is material is as follows: "In case any individual or firm owning on the 1st day of April in the year 1895 an established business on land in Boylston. whether the same shall be taken or not under this act, that such business is decreased in value by the carrying out of this act, whether by loss of custom or otherwise, and unable to agree with said board as to the amount of damages to be paid for such injury, such damages shall be determined," etc. The petitioner owned on the 1st of April, 1895, and had owned for a good many years, a small farm in West Boylston, consisting, it is said, of about 50 acres, which he carried on, and on which he lived and supported himself and family. He had no other business. He raised hay, grain, apples, and vegetables, but not in large quantities, and kept a cow, a horse, some hens, and a few hogs, and made each year a few barrels of cider from apples raised on the farm. The hay that was not consumed, and the eggs, vegetables, cider, and milk that were not required for the support of the family, were |