157. Practically, these fundamental rights are realized through the judiciary when the issue and test of their existence arise. Thus we turn to judicial decisions for the interpretation of these rights, or for declaration, in official form, of their primary rank as “reserved to the people or to the States.” All legislation, State or federal, must conform to them. Whether it actually does so conform is determinable in and by courts of law, on the principle, declared by Chief Justice Marshall, that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Thus for the protection of these fundamental rights the judiciary, by every principle of American constitutional law, is final, unless the sovereign arouses himself and changes the function, or office of the judiciary itself.[438] The sovereign may thus act, as the people of a State, or of the United States.[439] The now familiar decision of the Supreme Court as to the power of Congress over American territory (as differing from a State in the Union)[440] recognizes and declares that there are certain principles of natural justice which secure dependencies against legislation manifestly hostile to their real interests. These “principles of natural justice” as applied to constitutional government and law undoubtedly mean fundamental rights which secure persons, anywhere under American jurisdiction, “against legislation manifestly hostile to their real interests”; for the essential interest of the person,—that is, the “citizen” as defined in the Constitution,—is the interest of the sovereign,—the people of the United States, or of a State. 158. It is evident that there is a close relation between the law of constitutional limitations and the law of fundamental rights in America. A limitation is not always a right, in law; a right is not always a limitation; but the law of constitutional government in America—and this means the constitutional law of America—is worked out by judicial interpretation of these limitations and these rights. The right of freedom of worship and of exemption from compulsion to attend any place of worship is not violated by reading from the Bible in the public schools, or reading selections from the Bible. Such a reading does not convert the public school into a religious or theological seminary, nor is the reading a conversion of the public money to the use of a religious sect. “I am not able to see,” observed the court, “why extracts from the Bible should be proscribed, when the youth are taught no better authenticated truths from profane history.”[441] If under the influence of a religious belief (polygamy) that it was right, a man deliberately married a second time having a first wife living, the want of consciousness of evil intent did not excuse him, but criminal intent would be implied.[442]