Hide Article Text (OCR)
inn. DULiLJiUN ur inn. LAinuLiL utx xiviniN r» A.00Ruling Against Sisters Teaching in Public Schools Issued by Judge in New Mexico “Church-State” CaseSANTA FE. — (NO — District Judge E. T. Hensley has issued a ruling in the Dixon Chureh-Stalc case generally in favor of the plaintiffs, who seek to bar Catholic Religious and Catholic-owned schools from the public school system of the State,What is specifically unconstitutional in the use of the Catholic teachers and classrooms by the New Mexico educational authorities will be decided sometime after November 1 when Judge Hensley issues his final decision.In making his ruling, which was in the form of a declaratory judgment, the judge commented that ‘ringing of a bell does not constitute the wall of separation between Church and State in the public school that the recent McCollum decision of the U. S. Supreme Court requires.This was a reference to the testimony of several Sisters who admitted teaching catechism in the public schools in which they were employed, but who said that they taught it from 8:30 to 9 a. m„ before the regular school day began.Judge Hensley also remarked that the wearing of religious garb by public school teachers might not alone be unconstitutional, but that in this case, which involves thirty schools in eleven New Mexico counties, it was found in the midst of many sectarian influences.The trial was an outgrowth of' friction in the town of Dixon, where a part of the community resisted efforts to hire Catholic Sisters as teachers in a new public school. Mrs. Lydia Zellers of Dixon, two Protestant ministers, and other Individuals were the complainunls and 200 persons, including Catholic Sisters, Brothers and priests, and State and local school officials, were the defendants in the case.Aiding in the preparation of the plaintiffs’ case was II. Hilton Jackson, of Washington. D. C-, ivp-SANTE FE, N. M.—(NO—Dis-trict Judge E. T. Hensley, who presided over the recent Dixon case trial here, has amplified the statement he made at the end of the trial that he would rule generally in favor of the plaintiffs with a new comment that he would apply his ruling to individual schools and individual teachers.”His later statement carries the inference that there will be no general ban on the wearing of religious garb of the use of members of religious communities in the state schools.resenting the Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Charles Fahy, former United States Solicitor General, was one of the attorneys for the defendants.Among those who testified in the closing days of the trial was Mrs. Gail Barger, State elementary school superintendent and a non-Catholic who declared that many improvements in New Mexico's schools were due to Sisters, that they do not teach religion during school hours and are under the same control as other teachers. When she was a teacher, she said, she had to use a Protestant church as a school structure.Mrs. Nino Otero Warren, another witness, who is a former school official, said that she compliedwith the requests of many parents and brought many Sisters to New Mexico. She said the school board in Santa Cruz granted the right to Sisters to teach religion after first granting it to Protestants.Miss Edith Eecles. a former school superintendent, testified (hat after the Sisters came to Pcnasco, N. M., there was a complete change in the community, that where heretofore there .bad been killings and lawlessness the Sisters restored order and instituted excellent schools.In general, the defendants built their case around the services which tire Sisters had performed in New Mexico communities where lay teachers were unobtainable, and showed that the Catholic religious teachers and Catholic-owned schools were pressed into service by the communities and rot by the Church. The principal effort of the plaintiffs’ attorneys was to show that employment of Catholic religious led to promotion of Catholic religious practices and an atmosphere favorable to the Church in the public schools.A resolution praising fhe Catholic Church “for going into outlying areas and leaching where otherwise there would be no educational facilities for the children” was passed by the New Mexico State Federation of Labor after a lengthy discussion of the Dixon case issues at the federation's annual meeting here. The resolution was reported to the convention by a largely Protestant committee.ABRUPT AND UNEXPECTED RULING MADE BY JUDGESANTA FE, N. M—(RNC)—After nine days of hearings, the so-called Dixon case came to an unexpectedly abrupt end here witli District Judge E. T. Hensley ruling that “there is no separation of Church and State” in some New Mexican public schools.Judge Hensley, in an oral decision, found that Catholicism is taught in some public schools, and indicated that, his written judgement, to be released later, would rule generally in favor of the plaintiffs,” a group of Protestants seeking to bar garbed Catholic Nuns. Brothers and priests from public school teaching posts.The court gave attorneys for both sides thirty days in which to submit findings as a basis for a final judgment. He took no immediate action on a request for an injunction to bar garbed teachers.In giving the oral decision. Judge Hensley listed testimony showing use of buses to transport parochial pupils, religious garb, catechism classes and Catholic pictures displayed in some schools.Before Judge Hensley made his decision, Charles Fahy of Washington, D. C., a defense attorney, argued that the court, sitting on a court of equity, lacked authority to decide the case. lie declared that because a statutory remedy exists, the court could not bar Catholic religious from teaching in public schools.“The statutes are clear,” Fahy said “We wish to conform, but only correction and delineation I of what is the line that should be preserved in future is the proper remedy in this action.”He asserted that state statutesDefense AttorneyCHARLES FAHYOne of the attorneys for the nearly two hundred Sisters, Brothers and priests, named as defendants in the suit brought i.i Dixon, New Mexivo, to ban members of Religious Orders as teachers in the public schools of that state, is Charles Fahy, former Solicitor General of the United States, and a native of Rome, Georgia.Mr. Fahy, son of t lie late Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Fahy, of Rome, is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and of the Law School of Georgetown University, lie practiced law in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and in Washington, D. C. before being appointed Solicitor-General in 1941. In 1945 and 1946 he served as director of the legal division of the U, S. Military Government in Germany, and later as legal adviser to the State Department. Ho is now engaged in the practice of law in Washington. Mr. Fahy’s brother, Bernard S. Fahy, is a past president of the Catholic Laymen’s Association of Georgia.provides remedy for barring teachers from giving religious instruction “after an individual hearing before a board.”Judge Hensley interrupted Fahy to ask his view on a letter written by Archbishop Edwin V. Byrne of Santa Fe, in which the prelate directed that no religious instruction be given in the schools except on Saturdays and Sundays.Fahy replied that this letter was merely a paraphrase of an order issued earlier by the slate school board, and that the board had asked the Archbishop’s cooperation. “The Archbishop's letter demonstrates only cooperation and not control, he said.In additional arguments, Fahy' said there was nothing in the stale laws to prohibit teaching *n schools by instructors dressed in religious garb that the use of church property cannot be prohibited; and that the time of students prior to 9 a. m. does not belong to the state.
Newspaper Details
Augusta Bulletin
Augusta, Georgia, US
Sat, Oct 23, 1948
Page 13
Full Page
Clipped by
New M.
NM, USA 26 Jul 2024
Other Publications Near Augusta, Georgia
Augusta Mirror
Augusta Herald
Augusta Evening Dispatch
Augusta Columbian Centinel
Augusta Chronicle and Georgia Gazette
