1 Mass. 32 | Mass. | 1804
(Dana, C. J., Strong and Thatcher, justices,) without hearing the counsel for the defendants, were of opinion that the
The plaintiff was nonsuited
Note.—Is it not clear, from the form of the certificate prescribed in the 4th sect. of the act of March 4,1800, (stat. 1799, c. 87,) above mentioned, that the legislature had the same opinion (as that expressed in this case by the Court) as to the public teacher who might have a right to bring an action and recover moneys assessed and paid as aforesaid ?
It has since been decided, that an evangelist who has contracted to preach to two societies in different towns, is not entitled to the taxes paid by his hearers for the support of public worship—Kendall vs. Kingston, 5 vol 524; and, also, that no person has a right to receive these taxes who is not a teacher of piety, &c., to an incorporated society, 6 vol. 401, Barnes vs. Falmouth.—Both these points were again resolved, Turner vs. Second Precinct in Brookfield, 7 vol. 60 —See, also, ib. 230, Lord vs. Byfield. But it is now enacted by stat. 1811, c. 6, § 1, “ That all moneys paid by any citizen of this commonwealth to the support of public worship, or of public teachers of religion, shall, if such citizen require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious denomination, provided there be any whose instruction he usually attends, as xoell when such teacher or teachers is or arc the teacher or teachers of an unincorpoi'atcd as of a corporate religious society $ and it shall be sufficient to entitle any such teacher or teachers of a corporate or unincorporate religious society to receive the same moneys of the town, district, parish, or religious corporation, which shall assess, collect, or receive the sum, that he be ordained and established, according to the forms and usages of his oxon religious sect and denomination, although h>s parochial charges or duties may extend over other religious societies9 according to such forms and usages.”—No decision has yet been had to show whether tiiis statute is to be considered as constitutional, or whether its construction is to be restricted in conformity with constitutional principles.—[Sed vide Gridley vs. Clark 2 Pick. 403.—Sumner vs. First Parish in Dorchester, 4 Pick. 361.—Ed.]