University of Maryland v. Coale

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal presents the question whether the University of Maryland has the right to suspend a student because of ²²⁵ his refusal to take the regular university course in military training, when such refusal is based on his sincere, conscientious, religious convictions. The appellees, Ennis H. Coale, twenty years of age, and his father, Howard Cronin Co.ale, are residents of Harford County, Maryland, and the latter is a taxpayer of that county. Both the father and son are members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the son is a member of the Epworth League, a society of the Methodist Church.

Ennis Coale attended the Bel Air High School to the end of the course, and thereafter worked on his father’s farm for three years. In the spring of 1932, he decided to attend college, and with that end in view he sought information from various colleges and universities. He obtained a catalogue from the University of Maryland, and found that it contained the following provision: “All male students, if citizens of the United States, whose bodily condition indicates that they are physically fit to perform military duty or will be upon arrival at military age are required to take for a period of two years, as a prerequisite to graduation, the military training offered by the War Department.” Ennis Coale stated that it was his belief that war was against Christ’s teachings and was therefore wrong. He was asked if he knew the position the Methodist Episcopal Church had taken on the question of participation in war, and he replied: “No, I cannot say fully.

I know that it does not require its members not to gn into military service.” He testified that he was familiar with the resolution passed, at the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1932 on the subject of military training. He had read it in the Epworth League paper, to which he subscribed. The resolution is as follows: “We hold that our country is benefited by having as citizens those who unswervingly follow the dictates of their consciences. * * * Eurthermore, we believe it to be the duty of the churches to give moral support to those individuals who hold conscientious scruples against participation in military training or military service: We ²²⁶ petition the government of the United States to grant to members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who may be conscientious objectors to war the'same exemption from military service as has long been granted to members of the Society of Friends and other similar religious organizations. Similarly we petition all educational institutions which require military training to excuse from such training any student belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church who has conscientious scruples against it.

We earnestly petition the government of the United States to cease to support financially all military training in civil -educational institutions.” This resolution, passed in May, was read by Ennis Coale in.that or in the following month, and it had, he thought, the effect of strengthening his views in opposition to- war. And before reaching a conclusion, he had heard the subject of military training discussed in public meetings of the Epworth League and in Sunday School classes, and had also discussed the subject with Mr. Ehlers, the pastor of his church. He had also been in communication with Mr. Tucker Smith, one of the secretaries of a Committee on Militarism and Education, with offices in New York City. When asked how he came to get in touch with Mr. Smith, Coale said: “A few weeks before college opened I saw a public letter in the Sun, a letter to the editor, which said any students who intended to attend the University of Maryland who wished to be exempted from military training to- write teqthis office, and they would give them the best procedure to use.

So, I wrote there, and they sent the pamphlet giving the procedure. In this pamphlet it said it would be a good idea to write out a statement with your reasons for objecting to military training, and also to have a statement from your parents and from the minister, which I did. I did not get any ideas for the statement out of the pamphlet.” As stated by Coale, he “did not contact” with Mr. Smith personally, that is, he did not see him, until after he had registered at the university. At the opening of the university, in the- Fall of 1932, ²²⁷ young Coale registered as a student.

Before that time, so far as the record discloses, he had not communicated with Dr. Pearson, the president of the university, or with any one in authority, his unwillingness to' take military training. On reaching the university to register for the college of arts and sciences, he asked where he could lodge his protest against military training, and was told to see the dean of the university, which he did. The dean told him to see Major Gillem, the military instructor, who in turn told him to see Dr. Pearson, as he was the final authority. He saw Dr. Pearson with Major Gillem present.

As to this interview, Coale testified: “I gave Dr. Pearson the statement I had written, and my father’s statement, and asked that 1 be excused from military training, and he tried to convince me that I was wrong. In that statement, or during that conversation, I said that I wouldn’t take the military training, and he, of course, showed me that was a very dictatorial attitude, and I agreed before I left to take it for a week until he would see some of the higher authorities.” The written statement presented to Dr. Pearson by Coale is as follows: “To whom it may- concern: “I wish to protest against the course in Military Science which students at the University of Maryland are supposed to take. “I object to it on the following grounds: “I. I have conscientious scruples ag’ainst war or preparation for war. ' “2. I do not believe that the United States should prepare for war after signing the Paris Peace Pact. “3. I do not believe that one’s ideas of good citizenship should come from a paid officer of the War Department. “4.

I believe that the funds used for this purpose could be used for a much better purpose. “5. As a member of the Methodist Church and Epworth League, which are against compulsory military training, I could not take such a course. ²²⁸ “6. I believe that the time spent on a course in military training could be used for something more worthwhile. I am going to refuse to take the course in Military Science because I believe that is one of the ways in which I can help to do away with the wasteful and unreasonable war system.” Pursuant to the agreement mentioned, Coale reported for military training, and was told to return the following Monday, but before that time arrived he received the following letter from Dr. Pearson: • “After having discussed with some members of our faculty, your request of yesterday to be relieved of military training, I find that under the rules of the University your request cannot be granted. “If you were disabled physically, you could be excused immediately. “Please let me emphasize again that military training as given in this institution has great value from the standpoint of physical welfare of the students.

It has great value, also in developing the elements of discipline and the fundamentals of organization, all of which means good citizenship. * * *” On September 2-fth, a letter of the same import was written by the president to Howard Cronin Coale, the father, with this additional statement: “I am sure if the Board of Regents and our faculty felt that military training such as is given in this University tended to increase the war spirit or the likelihood of war, they would do everything possible to have the laws and regulations changed.” On October 5th, Dr. Pearson again wrote Ennis Coale, saying: “In view of your unwillingness and failure to comply with regulations of the University, you are hereby suspended from the University. “When you give proper assurance that you will abide by the regulations, it will be a pleasure to reinstate you.” ²²⁹ Thereafter, on October Ith, Ennis Coale wrote Dr. Pearson as follows: “I am going home for the week-end, as I do not want to make myself any more cost to the University than I can help, after your kind offer to refund all expenses. I do not have any way to take much baggage, and will he hack next week, probably, to get it, and get my withdrawal or suspension satisfactorily settled. “I want to thank you for your attention and courtesy in this matter, and trust that the regulations will ultimately he changed, so that students who come after me will find it easier to get an education without going contrary to their beliefs.” On October 10th, he again wrote Dr. Pearson as follows: “I have decided to attend classes until the Board of Regents have reached a decision on the matter of military training. If I did not, in the event that I could continue, I would be very much behind in all my work. “Of course, if this is impossible, please let me know. Please do not have the money refunded until the Board has reached a definite decision.” Upon receipt of these letters, Dr. Pearson assumed, as stated by him, that Ooale was “going to go ahead with his military work, and I called him into my office and complimented him and told him I was fully aware of his conscientious feeling, and that I would personally take the matter up with the Commandant and see that he was not asked to do anything in the Military Department to which he could reasonably object.

I felt very much pleased. I thought everything was settled. Until that moment I thought he was wholly sincere, hut after considerable hesitation he informed me at that time that he would be unable to take any of the work under any condition whatever with any exceptions that might be made. * * * And then I had to tell him that his suspension was still in effect. Q. What, in particular, did you tell him yon would do in the way of relieving him of ²³⁰ portions of 'the course in the Military Department ?

A. I told him he would not have to do anything with any weapons. Q. What did you say was his attitude ? A. His attitude was very evident that he appreciated my statement, and he wanted to accept it, but -'after considerable thought he rejected it. He refused to take any part of the work in the Military Department.” Dr. Pearson was then asked what he meant by the expression, “Until that moment I thought he was wholly sincere.” He replied: “Well, until that moment I thought he was acting from his own motive only, although I felt that that motive was mistaken, but at that time it came into my mind rather forcibly, that he was not acting in accordance with his own best judgment.” On October 13th, 1932, a petition addressed to the authorities of the University of Maryland was presented to them by Ennis Coale.

This petition requested reinstatement when his request for exemption was granted. The reasons given by him at that time were in the main those presented by him for exemption from military training at the earlier date, although enlarged upon, with the exception that he assigned the further reason that “I cannot afford to go to a private college where the costs would be greater and am, therefore, compelled to urge my right to an education at this tax-supported university, which my father, as a citizen and taxpayer of the State, is compelled to .support.” As Coale refused to take military training, his suspension stood unrevoked, and on December 20th, 1932, he with his father filed a petition in the Superior Court of Baltimore City asking for the issuance of a mandamus directed to the defendants, the president and executive head of the University of Maryland, -and the members of the board of regents of the university, the appellants in this court, preventing and restraining them from refusing permission to the said Ennis H. Coale “to pursue his studies at the University-of Maryland unless he agrees to pursue a course in military training, and commanding him and them to allow the said Ennis H. Coale to be reinstated in the said University of Maryland ²³¹ for the purpose of pursuing his course of study therein, upon taking such course or courses in lieu of military training as the defendants may direct, and further ordering and requiring such other relief and protection to your petitioners and their rights as aforesaid, as may be proper and necessary in the premises.” The case was heard by the judge sitting in the court named, who, after full consideration of all the pleadings and evidence in the case, ordered the writ of mandamus to be issued as prayed. It is from that judgment of the court that the appeal was taken. The sole claim here made by the appellees is that a sincere, religious, conscientious objector is legally and constitutionally exempt from a compulsory course in military training at the University of Maryland upon his taking such other course or courses as the authorities may designate.

The present University of Maryland is a consolidation of the University of Maryland, as incorporated by the Acts of 1812, chapter 159, and the Maryland State College of Agriculture, incorporated under the Acts of 1916, chapter 372. The act of consolidation was passed by the Legislature of 1920, chapter 480. There is no special provision contained in the act of 1812, incorporating the Maryland University, in relation to military training. In 1862, Congress passed a land grant act known as the Morrell Act (Act Cong.

July 2nd, 1862 [ 12 Stat. 503 ]), which provided for federal appropriations for certain state colleges or universities, the title of the act being “An Act donating Public Lands to the several States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts.” The money so provided was to be used for the “endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in such manner as the ‘legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe. * * *” Section 4 (7 U. S. Code Ann., sec. 304). By the Acts of 1864 of the General Assembly of Mary ²³² land, chapter 90, the State declared its acceptance of the provisions of the Act of Congress of 1862, and the comptroller of the treasury was thereby “authorized to receive from the proper authorities of the United States, the land scrip to be issued for the lands granted to this State by the said act of Congress,” which were to be sold by him and the proceeds invested as therein stated. And by the subsequent act of 1865, chapter 178, it was provided that “the annual interest or income of said investment shall be regularly paid by him * * * to the Maryland Agricultural College,” and therein using the exact language of the federal act of 1862 as to the course of studies, including military tactics. The Maryland Agricultural College thereby became a land grant college, and thereafter, until the passage of the Acts of 1916, chapter 372, whereby the Agricultural College became the Maryland State College of Agriculture, military training was one of the courses taught at that college; and the exact language used in the Acts of 1865, chapter 178, as to the course of studies to be taught therein, was again used in the Acts of 1916, chapter 372, incorporating the State College of Agriculture.

It will be seen that there was nothing in' said federal and state acts forbidding military training in the colleges mentioned. But on the contrary such course of training was specially authorized therein. The act of consolidation, chapter 480 of the Acts of 1920, conferred upon the