CORRIE'S CASE.

subjected to that ecclesiastical establishment, (f) And conse-
quently the authority of the English Chancellor to interfere with,
and direct the religious edilsation of infants, so far at least as to
prevent them from being brought up in the belief of any religious
creed, in direct and open violation of that of the established church,
is founded upon this fundamental law and on that obligation by
which all judicial officers are bound to support the constitution of
their country, (g) Before the revolution, a religious creed having
been established by law here, a similar obligation was imposed
upon the courts of justice here, to take care of what was then
deemed the proper religious education of infants in Maryland, (h)
It has, however, been declared, by the constitution of this re-
public, (that, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in
such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons pro-
fessing the Christian religion are equally entitled to protection in
their religious liberty,' &e.; (i) and also, c that the liberty of the
press ought to be inviolably preserved.' (j) And it having also
been declared, by the constitution of the United States, that 'con-
gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press.' (k) It follows, that none of the public
functionaries of this state, or of the Union, can exercise any au-
thority at variance with those great rules of fundamental law by
which the freedom of religious and political opinions are secured
to our citizens. Consistently, however, with those constitutional
provisions, it may, nevertheless, be held to be within the scope of
the Chancellor's jurisdiction in the case of infants, to have them
removed from under any open or direct immoral and vicious influ-
ence or example; as from the tuition of an infamous convict; (1)
where the infant could not fail to be engaged in vicious pursuits,
or be prevented from acquiring those virtuous principles and habits
indispensable to the formation of a good and useful citizen, (m)

(f) Cox's case, 1 P. Will. 29; In re Masters, &c. of the Bedford Charity, 2 Swan,
522.—(g) Storke v. Storke, 3 P. Will. 51; Roach v. Garvan, 1 Ves. 158, and Supp.;
Viliareal t?. Mellish, 2 Swan, 533; Blake v. Leigh, Amb. 306; De Manneville v.
De Manneville, 10 Ves. 61; Wellesley v. Beaufort, 8 Cond. Cha. Rep. 11; Lyons v.
Bienkin, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 115; Shelley v, Westbrooke, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 126.—
(k) 1715, ch. 39, s. 10; 1729, ch. 24, s. 12.—(t) Decla. Rights, art. 33.—(j) Decla.
Rights, art. S8.—(k) Const. U. S. amend, art. 1.—(1) 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 4.—
(») Beaufort v. Berty, 1 P. Will. 703; Storke v, Storke, 3 P. Will. 51; De Manne-
ville v. De Manneville, 10 Ves. 61; Whitfield v. Hales, 12 Ves. 492; Ball v. Ball,
2 Cond. Cha. Rep. 299; Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 1; 2 Lond. Ju-
rist, 66; Jones v. Stockett, ante 428.

f