To construe it the constitution as breaking down the
common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon
Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. Vidal v.
Girard’s Executors, 1844 United States Supreme Court This was the third case
cited in Holy Trinity, and it involved the probation of the will of Frenchman
Stephen Girard who had arrived in America before the Declaration of
Independence was signed. Girard settled in Philadelphia and lived there until
his death in 1831, whereupon his entire estate and personal property valued at
over $7 million was bequeathed to the city on the condition that it construct
an orphanage and a college according to his stipulations.
Girard’s heirs the plaintiffs filed suit contesting the
will on two grounds: 1 that a private will could not be given to a public
entity; and 2 that as a provision for the college, Girard had stipulated: I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic,
missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any
station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be
admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises. My desire is
that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to
instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality.
His requirement to exclude clergy and religious teachings
from a school was unprecedented. The great Daniel Webster the “Defender of the
Constitution” and Walter Jones were the lawyers for the plaintiffs. Jones
argued that: The plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant
to the law. Webster reminded the Court that: Both in the Old and New Testaments
its importance i.e., the religious instruction of youth is recognized.
In the Old it is said, “Thou shalt diligently teach them
to thy children,” and in the New, “Suffer little children to come unto me and
forbid them not.” No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble
college to bear his name forever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance
of Christianity about it. Webster believed that the single provision excluding
clergy was sufficient to cause Girard’s entire will to be set aside. The city’s
attorneys disagreed; although they, too, believed that it was wrong to exclude
clergy, they claimed that instead of contesting the entire will, the plaintiffs
should simply have: Joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious
clause.
