Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/110

 was based upon an act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the state, approved April 9, 1919, which was as follows:

"Sec. 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language.

"Sec. 2. Languages other than the English langaugelanguage [sic] may be taught as languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the eighth grade, as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the county superintendent of the county in which the child resides.

"Sec. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25) dollars, nor more than one hundred ($100) dollars, or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding thirty days for each offense.

Sec. 4. Whereas, an emergency exists this act shall be enforced from and after its passage and approval."

The supreme court of the state affirmed a judgment of conviction. It declared the offense charged and established was the direct and intentional teaching of the German language as a distinct subject to a child who had not passed the eighth grade in the parochial school maintained by the Zion Evangelical Lutheran congregation, a collection of Biblical stories being used therefor, and it held that the statute forbidding this did not conflict with the Fourteenth amendment, but was a valid exercise of the people's power.

In deciding this case, Justice McReynolds said:

"The problem for our determination is, whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment, 'No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without it denotes, not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and to bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally, to enjoy these privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"That the state may do much, go very far indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the constitution extends to all—to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with the English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the constitution—a desirable end cannot be prompted by prohibited means.

"The desire of the legislature to foster (a) homogeneous people with American ideals, prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters, is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war, and aversion toward every characteristic of truculent adversaries, was certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the state and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough, and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquillity has been shown.

"But the power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulation for all schools, including a requirement that they shall give instructions in English, is not questioned, nor has challenge been made of the state's power