He also refuted the allegations that "our nation supports the public school for the sole purpose of self-preservation," that the assimilation and education of the foreignborn are best secured in the public schools, that private and parochial schools tend to the formation of groups the children of which are brought up "in an environment often antagonistic to the principles of our government," that a "true American" would result from mixing "those with prejudices in the public school melting pot," and other contentions of like tenor.

On June 1, 1925, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a unanimous decision in the case, declaring the statute unconstitutional.

After showing that the plaintiffs had such an interest in the subject-matter of the controversy as to afford them a standing in court, Mr. Justice McReynolds disposed of the merits of this historic cause in the following words:

"Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

It is gratifying to note that the exponents of the new nativistic philosophy have found a courageous and redoubt

able opponent in the President of the United States, who has utterly demolished some of the most cherished of the pet notions of Ku Kluxism and Nordicism. Mr. Coolidge graciously accepted an invitation to deliver an address at the exercises connected with the laying of the cornerstone of the Jewish Community Center of Washington, referred to above, and in his remarks he made it known in plain terms that he was entirely out of sympathy with the New Know-Nothingism, that he disagreed wholly with the views of the university professor already alluded to, and that he appreciated the debt which America owes to the Jews. Among other things he said:

The Jewish community of the United States is not only the second most numerous in the world, but in respect of its Old World origins it is probably the most cosmopolitan. But whatever their origin as a people, they have always come to us, eager to adapt themselves to our institutions, to thrive under the influence of liberty, to take their full part as citizens in building and sustaining the nation, and to bear their part in its defense, in order to make a contribution to the national life fully worthy of the traditions they had inherited.

He also repudiated the idea, which the apostles of superAmericanism have tried sedulously to spread, that the population of the British colonies in America was a homogeneous unit, held together by ties of race and by a common heritage of political experience under a free government, in saying:

Among the peoples of the thirteen colonies, there were few ties of acquaintance, of commercial or industrial interest. There were great differences in political sentiments, even within the local communities, while there were wide divergencies among the several colonies, in origin, in religion, in social outlook.

He paid this eloquent tribute to the value of the Bible in the development of American ideals:

"There were well-nigh as many divergencies of religious faith as there were of origin, politics and geography. While the early dangers, in some colonies, made a unity in belief and all else a necessity to existence, at the bottom of the colonial character lay a stratum of religious liberalism which had animated most of the early comers. From its beginnings the new continent had seemed destined to be the home of religious tolerance. Those who claimed the right of individual choice for themselves finally had to grant it to others. Beyond that—and this was one of the factors which I think weighed heaviest on the side of unity-the Bible was the one work of literature that was common to all of them.

"The Scriptures were read and studied everywhere. There are many testimonies that their teachings became the most important intellectual and spiritual force of unification. I remember to have read somewhere, I think in the writings of the historian Lecky, the observation that 'Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.' Lecky had in mind this very influence of the Bible in drawing together the feelings and sympathies of the widely scattered communities. All the way from New Hampshire to Georgia they found a common ground of faith and reliance in the Scriptural writings.

"This biblical influence was strikingly impressive in all of the New England colonies and only less so in the others. In the Connecticut code of 1650, the Mosaic model is adopted. The magistrates were authorized to administer justice ‘according to the laws here established and, for want of them, according to the word of God.' In the New Haven code of 1655, there were seventy-nine topical statutes for the government, half of which contained references to the Old Testament. The founders of the New Haven colony, John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, were expert Hebrew scholars.

"The sturdy old divines of those days found the Bible a chief source of illumination for their arguments in support of the patriotic cause. They knew The Book. They were profoundly familiar with it and eminently capable in the exposition of all its justifications for rebellion. To them, the record of the exodus from Egypt was, indeed, an inspired precedent. They knew what argu

ments from Holy Writ would most powerfully influence their people. It required no great stretch of logical processes to demonstrate that the children of Israel, making bricks without straw in Egypt, had their modern counterpart in the people of the colonies, enduring the imposition of taxation without representation."

The President pleaded for national solidarity and harmony on the basis not of racial and religious standardization but upon the basis of "those institutions which have proved capable of guaranteeing our unity, and strengthening us in advancing the estate of common man.”

More recently, the President made an even more direct plea for religious and racial understanding in his noble address to the American Legion, at Omaha, Nebraska, on October 6. His remarks on that occasion were so telling and to the point that we deem it useful to give the following excerpts:

If we are looking for a more complete reign of justice, a more complete supremacy of law, a more social harmony, we must seek it in the paths of peace. Progress in these directions under the present order of the world is not likely to be made except during a state of domestic and international tranquillity. One of the great questions before the nations today is how to promote such tranquillity.

The economic problems of society are important. On the whole we are meeting them fairly well. They are so personal and so pressing that they never fail to receive constant attention. But they are only a part. We need to put a proper emphasis on the other problems of society.

We need to consider what attitude of the public mind it is necessary to cultivate in order that a mixed population like our own may dwell together more harmoniously and the family of nations reach a better state of understanding. You who have been in the service know how absolutely necessary it is in a military organization that the individual subordinate some part of his personality for the general good. That is the one great lesson

which results from the training of a soldier. Whoever has been taught that lesson in camp and field is thereafter the better equipped to appreciate that it is equally applicable in other departments of life. It is necessary in the home, in industry and commerce, in scientific and intellectual development.

At the foundation of every strong and mature character we find this trait, which is best described as being subject to discipline. The essence of it is toleration. It is toleration in the broadest and most inclusive sense, a liberality of mind, which gives to the opinions and judgments of others the same generous consideration that it asks for its own, and which is moved by the spirit of the philosopher who declared that "To know all is to forgive all." It may not be given to finite beings to attain that ideal, but it is none the less one toward which we should strive.

One of the most natural of reactions during the war was intolerance. But the inevitable disregard for the opinions and feelings of minorities is none the less a disturbing product of war psychology. The slow and difficult advances which tolerance and liberalism have made through long periods of development are dissipated almost in a night when the necessary wartime habits of thought hold the minds of the people. The necessity for a common purpose and a united intellectual front becomes paramount to everything else.

But when the need for such a solidarity is past there should be a quick and generous readiness to revert to the old and normal habits of thought. There should be an intellectual demobilization as well as a military demobilization. Progress depends very largely on the encouragement of variety. Whatever tends to standardize the community, to establish fixed and rigid modes of thought, tends to fossilize society. If we all believed the same thing and thought the same thoughts and applied the same valuations to all the occurrences about us, we should reach a state of equilibrium closely akin to an intellectual and spiritual paralysis. It is the ferment of ideas, the clash of disagreeing judgments, the privilege of the individual to develop his own thoughts and shape his own character, that makes progress possible. It is not possible to learn much from those who uniformly agree with us.