
    JEREMIAH MAXEY, plaintiff in error, v. A. A. BELL, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    June Term, 1870.)
    GUARDIAN—REMOVAL—RELIGIOUS BELIEE NO GROUND. —No man in this State is subject to any civil or political incapacity by reason of his opinions upon any subject, and that one is a UniversaJist or infidel, or holder of any faith, or,views, is no ground for his removal from the guardianship of minor children, to which he was appointed by the will of the deceased father of the children.
    Constitutional Law. Universalism. Before Judge Andrews. Oglethorpe Superior Court. April Term, 1870.
    Maxey averred that Bell, of Morgan county, was executor of' James Maxey, deceased, was mismanaging said estate in the particulars specified, and was of doubtful solvency, and that Bell was also testamentary guardian of James Maxey’s daughter and son, aged respectively nearly fourteen and nearly ten years, “that said children are unwilling to remain in the custody of said guardian,” that he was not a proper ^person to have the custody of the minors, “his religious creed being that usually denominated Universalism.” He prayed that the Ordinary of Oglethorpe county should compel Bell to give security as executor, and that he be removed from said guardianship.
    By consent, the cause was appealed to the Superior Court. In that Court the petition was amended by striking its grounds as put, and averring in lieu, as follows: Petitioner is own uncle of said minors, is a Baptist of long and good standing; Bell is, and long has been “an infidel of the order usually denominated Universalists, who deny the gospel, and profess to believe that all will finally be saved;” testator professed the same belief, and was consequently a sympathizing friend to Bell, advised with him as to his will; Bell wrote the .will; it specifically directs as to the management of his property, but says nothing as to the management 'of his children, except that they be educated as well as their means will allow, “and be brought up to habits of industry, and (have) the principles of morality and a sense of moral obligation instilled into their minds.” The property is small; one person should be guardian of both the property and the wards; they can be more comfortable and more cheaply educated on their father’s place, under petitioner’s charge, (especially as that is near to a school and several Christian Churches,) than at Bells. The prayer was for Bell’s removal from the guardianship, apd petitioner’s appointment in his stead.
    The petition, as amended, was demurred to generally. The demurrer was sustained, and that is assigned as error.
    Reid & Morton, for plaintiff in error, said preventive justice was better than punitive justice: 1 P. Wm’s, 704. This is a Christian Government: 2 Story’s Eq. Juris., secs. 1341, 1342, 1343; Adam’s Eq., 282; 2 Kent’s Com., 205 ; 3 L. Cas. in Eq., 575, et seq., 566; R. Code, secs. 1702, 4495.
    J. D. Matthews, for defendant,
    said an Universalist is not an infidel: Buck’s Theo. Die., “Universalist.” Without *regard to faith or opinions, all have equal civil and political rights in Georgia: Constitution of 1868, Art. 1, Secs. 6 and 12; of 1865, Art. 1, Sec. 5; of 1861, Art. 1, Sec. 7; of 1798, Art. 4, Sec. 10; Wharton’s Cr. L., Par. 2539, et seq.; Bishop’s Cr. L. Par. 376, et seq.; Rev. Code, secs. 1648, et seq.; 10 Vesey, 56, 60, 63; 12th Vesey, 492; 15th Vesey, 445; Jacobs R., 245, 266; 2 Russ. R., 1, 20, 21.
   McCAY, J.

It is a little extraordinary that the spirit of intolerance should need such precise restraints to keep it within bounds. It has for years been the settled law of this State, that men shall not be molested for their religious opinions. The Constitution of 1861 and 1865, each added, “nor prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of his religious opinions:” Constitution 1865, Article I, section 5. By' a play upon the word “religious,” some orthodox people did not admit that this protected one who had opinions which they did not think were “religious.” This very proceeding calls Mr. Bell an “Infidel,” of the sect of Universalists, with intent, we suppose, to put him out of the protection of the Constitution, as one whose opinions could not be classed as religious. But without doubt, even the Constitution of 1861 and 1865, mean, by this, opinions upon matters relating to the relation between man and his Maker. But our present Constitution gives broader language. After using the language of the Constitution of 1861 and 1865, Article 1, Section 6, it adds another clause: Section 12, Article 1, is in these words: “No person shall be molested for his opinions, or be subject to any civil or political incapacity, or acquire any civil or political advantage in consequence of such opinions.” This cuts at the root of the whole matter—leaves not a single link of the old chain by which, for so many centuries, men have tried to bind in fetters the human mind.

In Georgia, a man may think as he pleases upon any subject, religious, philosophical or political, and is not, for that, under any civil or political disability.

The office of guardian is a public trust, and these clauses *declare no man incapacitated for that trust, by reason of his opinions.

If men act badly, lead lives rendering them unfit to have the rearing of children, we will not say that the Courts may not interfere. But over men’s opinions, bv the laws of Georgia, we have no jurisdiction, and we think this is a wise provision. Judgment affirmed.  