Dunn v. Chicago Industrial School for Girls

280 Ill. 613
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 23, 1917
DocketNo. 11427
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 280 Ill. 613 (Dunn v. Chicago Industrial School for Girls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunn v. Chicago Industrial School for Girls, 280 Ill. 613 (Ill. 1917).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Cartwright

delivered the opinion of the court:

William H. Dunn, a tax-payer of Cook county, filed the bill in this case in the circuit court of that county praying for an injunction to prevent the county board from appropriating, the county clerk from ordering paid and the county treasurer from paying the sum of $4151.50 for the care and maintenance of the girls committed to the Chicago Industrial School for Girls by the juvenile court of Cook county, upon the ground that the making and payment of the appropriation would violate section 3 of article 8 of the constitution. Answers were filed by the school and the. county authorities, and replications thereto having been filed, the chancellor heard the evidence and entered a decree granting a perpetual injunction as prayed for and awarding costs against the defendants. From-that decree this appeal was prosecuted.

The facts as determined by the pleadings, a stipulation of the parties and the evidence heard by the chancellor are as follows: The Chicago Industrial School for Girls was organized as a corporation under the act of the General Assembly of May 28, 1879, entitled “An act to aid industrial schools for girls.” (Laws of 1879, p. 309.) It is managed and controlled by a board of directors, and maintains near DesPlaines, in Cook county, buildings, with ample grounds and equipment, to meet the requirements of the act. The buildings contain recreation halls, shower baths, class rooms, a music room and rooms for instruction in hand sewing and domestic science. ' The inmates are taught the usual school studies, and cooking, music, sewing, embroidery, crocheting, laundry work, general housework, and domestic work generally. The number of girls in the institution for the year 1915 between the ages of three and eighteen years was 534, and the average attendance of girls during that year was 356. A considerable number of the girls were committed to the school by the juvenile court of Cook county, and they each and all enjoyed the benefit of the care, instruction and attention afforded by the institution. There are eleven teachers or instructors who are sisters of mercy and who are paid $16 a month, which goes into the common treasury of the religious order, and there are six other women instructors who belong to no religious order. The children committed to the school by the juvenile court are all children of Catholic parents and members of that church. The institution is under the control and management of the Roman Catholic church, and there is a priest who is chaplain and conducts religious services. There is a mother superior in general charge, and there is a chapel on the grounds where religious services according to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are held which all inmates are required to attend. The school has been receiving $15 per month for each girl, which is less than the cost to the State for each girl committed to the State Training School for Girls at Geneva, a similar institution maintained by the State, where the cost is $28.88 for each girl per month. The amount paid by Cook county is less than the cost of food, clothing, training, medical care and tuition furnished to the wards of the county outside of any religious instruction or religious services, and the balance above the amount paid by the county is made up by donations, largely given by the archbishop. Each year the school has been given a certificate by the State Board of Charities, or its successor, the Board of Administration, that the school is competent and has adequate facilities to care for the children committed to its care by the juvenile court.

The substantial basis of the brief and argument for the appellee is that the payment of public funds to a school under church or sectarian control violates the constitution even when it is made in payment for clothing, board, education in the arts and sciences and training in the domestic sciences, and in the argument at the bar counsel contended that under the constitution no ward of the State can be committed to any institution where there are religious services or where religious doctrines are taught but all institutions to which they may be committed must be absolutely divorced from religion or religious teaching. This is a clear misapprehension of the attitude of the people toward religion expressed in the constitution. In the preamble expression is given to the gratitude of the people of the State for the religious liberty which they had been permitted to enjoy, and section 3 of the bill of rights provides: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed. * * * No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” Section 3 of article 8 of the constitution, which particularly prohibits any preference to any religious denomination or mode of worship, is as follows: “Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or -to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the State or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.” The people not only did not declare hostility to religion but regarded its teachings and practices as a public benefit which might be equal to the payment of taxes, and by section 3 of article 9 of the constitution provided that property used exclusively for religious purposes may be exempted from the burden of taxation, and the General Assembly, by virtue of that provision, has declared such exemption. In harmony with the provision for the free exercise and enjoyment of religious freedom and worship, the General Assembly in the Juvenile Court act provided by section 17, that “the court in committing children shall place them as far as practicable in the care and custody of some individual holding the same religious belief as the parents of said child, or with some association which is controlled by persons of like religious faith of the parents of the said child.”

Not only have the people, by the constitution and' by their representatives in the General Assembly, recognized and provided for the enjoyment of religious liberty, but the court has not adopted any rule antagonistic thereto. In Nichols v. School Directors, 93 111. 61, the court said: “Religion and religious worship are not so placed under the ban of the constitution that they may not be allowed to become the recipients of any incidental benefit whatsoever from the public bodies or authorities of the State.” In Millard v. Board of Education, 121 Ill. 297, where the authority of a board of education to lease the basement of a Catholic church and pay rent therefor was questioned and an injunction sought, the court said that if it became necessary for a board of education to procure a building to be used for school purposes it had a right to rent from any person who had property suitable for school purposes, and whether the owner of the.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chittenden Town School District v. Department of Education
738 A.2d 539 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Rogers v. Swanson
219 N.W.2d 726 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1974)
Board of Education v. Bakalis
299 N.E.2d 737 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1973)
Community Council v. Jordan
432 P.2d 460 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1967)
People Ex Rel. Latimer v. Board of Education
68 N.E.2d 305 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1946)
City of New Haven v. Town of Torrington
43 A.2d 455 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1945)
Harfst v. Hoegen
163 S.W.2d 609 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1942)
Collins v. Martin
8 Pa. D. & C. 239 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Kuykendall v. Tittle
245 Ill. App. 270 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1924)
Bennett v. City of LaGrange
112 S.E. 482 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
St. Hedwig's Industrial School for Girls v. County of Cook
124 N.E. 629 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1919)
Trost v. Ketteler Manual Training School
282 Ill. 504 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1918)
Dunn v. Addison Manual Training School for Boys
117 N.E. 993 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 Ill. 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-chicago-industrial-school-for-girls-ill-1917.