Smith v. Donahue

202 A.D. 656, 195 N.Y.S. 715, 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4952
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 6, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 202 A.D. 656 (Smith v. Donahue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Donahue, 202 A.D. 656, 195 N.Y.S. 715, 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Van Kirk, J.:

/ The principal question and in fact the only question urged seriously by the plaintiff is whether or not public funds may be used to furnish text-books and ordinary school supplies to pupils of private schools, or schools other than the public district schools, located in the city of Ogdensburg.

By the Laws of 1917, chapter 786, article 33-A (§§ 865-881) was added to the Education Law. The article provides for boards of education in the several cities of the State. In section 868, subdivision 4, is the following: To purchase and furnish such apparatus, maps, globes, books, furniture and other equipment and supplies as may be necessary for the proper and efficient management of the schools and other educational, social and recreational activities and interests under its management and control. To provide textbooks or other supplies to all the children attending the schools of such cities in which free textbooks or other supplies are lawfully provided prior to the time this act goes into effect.” This is one of the subdivisions of the section defining the powers and duties of boards of education in cities. Unless this subdivision authorizes the board of education of the city of Ogdensburg to furnish textbooks and supplies to schools other than the public schools in the district, or the pupils of such, it is conceded that the judgment _ appealed from is erroneous.

To control and furnish education for the youth of the State is a governmental function, which was not delegated to the Federal government, but reserved to the States; and the legislative department of each State has full control of its school and educational activities. In the exercise of this power the Legislature of this State has enacted the Education Law (Consol. Laws, chap, 16 [Laws of 1910, chap. 140], as amd.). In this law public schools were authorized in school districts and, by the act of 1917 {supra), in cities which are constituted school districts. These districts are civil divisions of the State founded for the exercise of this governmental function. The boards of education have full control of the public schools [659]*659(§ 865) and in the cities have the care, custody, control and safekeeping of all school property or other property of the city used for educational, social or recreational work and not specifically placed by law under the control of some other body or officer, and shall prescribe rules and regulations for the preservation of such property (§ 868, subd. 3); also, in subdivision 5 of section 868 such boards are empowered and directed “ To establish and maintain such free elementary schools, high schools, training schools, vocational and industrial schools, kindergartens, technical schools, night schools, part-time or continuation schools, vacation schools, schools for adults, open air schools, schools for the mentally and physically defective children or such other schools or classes as such board shall deem necessary to meet the needs and demands of the city; ” also by subdivisions 7 and 8 of said section to direct and control the courses of study and the text-books to be used. Each board of education of a school district or city is a body corporate (§ 300); and all their duties are confined to the public, educational, social and recreational activities of the city, devoted to the welfare of the children; they have no authority or control over any other schools than public schools.

The first inquiry is whether or not the furnishing of “ text books and ordinary school supplies ” to parochial schools is in conflict with the Constitution. In the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution is this: “ Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, and right of petition. Congress shall make 'no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In article 1 of the State Constitution is this: “ Freedom of worship; religious liberty. § 3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to all mankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.” (The direct provision of the Constitution which bears upon this case is in' article 9, which refers to common schools and the -university. Section 1 is: “The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this State may be educated.” Section 4 is: “No aid to denominational schools. § 4. Neither the State nor any subdivision thereof, shall use its property or credit or any public money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance, other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under the control or direction of any religious denomination, [660]*660or in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught.” At no time has it been the intent of government in our republic to permit the union of secular and religious education in any public school. The State has ever been zealous, since its organization, to protect against appearance of an encroachment upon the right of free worship of God as the conscience of the citizens may choose and direct. No law has ever been permitted, or practice to that end condoned, respecting any establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religious belief without discrimination or preference or interference in any manner. In O’Connor v. Hendrick (109 App. Div. 361; affd., 184 N. Y. 421) the action was brought by a teacher to recover for services in a public school. The teacher wore the garb of a religious order or society in the Roman Catholic church. The Superintendent of Public Instruction had made a rule forbidding the use of such garb or dress. It was held that the teacher could not recover; that the order of the Superintendent was reasonable under article 9, section 4, of the Constitution above quoted, referring to which the Court of Appeals said: “ Here we have the plainest possible declaration of the public policy of the State as opposed to the prevalence of sectarian influences in the public schools. The regulation established by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction through the agency of his order in the Bates appeal is in accord with the public'policy thus evidenced by the fundamental law. There can be little doubt that the effect of the costume worn by these Sisters of St. Joseph at all times in the presence of their pupils would be to inspire respect if not sympathy for the religious denomination to which they so manifestly belong. To this extent the influence was sectarian, even if it did not amount to the teaching of denominational doctrine. ”J Under article 1, section 3, of the Constitution, and similar provisions in Constitutions of other States, which assure the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship and belief without restraint, the reading of the Bible has been excluded from many of the public schools under protest that such practice was in conflict with the regulations and belieis of a religious denomination; and the public schools being furnished for all the children, the reading of the Bible was excluded in order that there could be no restraint upon their enjoyment of the public schools and without prejudicing their religious beliefs.

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

Related

Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 v. Allen
228 N.E.2d 791 (New York Court of Appeals, 1967)
Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 v. Allen
27 A.D.2d 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Scales v. Board of Education
41 Misc. 2d 391 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Dickman v. School District No. 62c
366 P.2d 533 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1961)
Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 v. Allen
51 Misc. 2d 297 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Engel v. Vitale
18 Misc. 2d 659 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Almond v. Day
89 S.E.2d 851 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)
Silver Lake Consolidated School District v. Parker
29 N.W.2d 214 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1947)
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing
330 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1947)
O'Neill v. Hubbard
180 Misc. 214 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Chance v. Mississippi State Textbook Rating & Purchasing Board
200 So. 706 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1941)
Drozda v. Bassos
260 A.D. 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
Flagg v. Murdock
172 Misc. 1048 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)
Judd v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 2
15 N.E.2d 576 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Board of Education v. Wheat
199 A. 628 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
Board of Education v. Rogers
252 A.D. 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Palmer v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 2
250 A.D. 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
State v. Brown
172 A. 835 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1934)
Brooks v. Wyman
220 A.D. 204 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 A.D. 656, 195 N.Y.S. 715, 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-donahue-nyappdiv-1922.