New-York daily tribune., 1844-06-17
The commercial and Bishop Hughes.


Of New. York. OF which farther lnsthlmentisIo To
be gwen in that paper today. Those who want
to read anv more words about Bcnneti's report OF
the Carroll Hail Meeiing, Monroe Edwards's re!i-
gion, an enonyrnou. handbi with cross on 1t
calling OH Catholics to vote the Tam'nany ticket,
(which no lnan at once honest and intelligent can
nr.,,,;d - believe was issued by Cathocs.l abuse
of The Tii5unc &c. &c doae up alter the nan-
no, Of the Potts and Wainwright controversy,
ui! be gtatihed by obtaining two or three success
ave numbers OF the Commercial Believing that
we can fill our columns much more accePtab!y
and useuy TO our readers. and seeng no reason ior
copvinf- so lauch coarse slang about The lnbune
from paper which would never suffer our si3e
Of the matter to be seen by It's readers, we shall
let it pass. The fact that II IS not 'oritfea oy
CoE Stone, but by another gentleman Who has
done his best from the outset TO make the School
Question bitter fountain OF s;;ie and !il-will IN
our City-that II IS in no sense defence Of Col.
Stones course nor a reply to Bishop i1ughes-and
that it travels out OF It's protested track on every
side to assail and misfepresent the friends OF
Political Equality and Religious Freedom-givIng
a wanton kick at those who hold that punishment
should be directed 70 the reform Of the punished,
and trying hard to slander the Associationists,
but succeeding only in beying them, will suffice
to exhibit its character. Having laid out so wide
:; field it is hardly wonderful that the writer re-
quircs two OF three papers wherein to go over 1t,
but we doubt that many will fee! Interested IN
following him.
The writer very clearly pcrccivcs the difficulty
OF allowing any sort OF theology but his own to
be taught in our public schools and more than
intima,es that if he cannot have this and this
only, he will insist on breaking up the Common
School system altogether. The Catholic, the
Unitarian, the Jew, the unbclicvcr, must consent
to have their children taught from his version OF
the Bible and his views OF ts doctrines, or they
must not be taught in Public Schools at all. He
condemns the suggestion of allowing such and
so much Religion TO be taught in each School as
the majority OF the parents of children taught
therein shall direct, as altogether impractcablc
and Irrational. But why the will of majority OF
the District should not be respected rather than
that OF the assumed majority Of a Nation, we can
not perceive. Take an instance which he con-
siders extreme-u District School, in which nine
teen-,wcnteths of the children taught should be
those Of Hebrew parents, firm in the lsraellte
faith-wouId it be rational, profitable, and con.
ssient with the genius OF our institutions, 10 COM
pei those children to read regularly the New Tcs
lament, while their parents taught them utterly TO
disbclicve and abhor it To cur mind it woald
be not only garng and wanton persecution, but
an outrage upon, and mockery OF, the Bible.
The writer assumes that, if school children are
to be taught religion, lar as it is taught at all, ac
cording to the faith oftheir parents, each Church
or sect must be taxed for the entire support Of the
Schools in which It's children are taught We
see no sort Of necessity for this 1t is the interest
Of all that all children nc educaied--the interest
especially Of the holders nf property as such,
whose possessions are rendered more valuable and
secure by the universal diffusion OF knowledge
They pay taxes for Schools Just as for Roads, be
cause their interest is thereby su5,ervcd Iiitis
deemed best that Rel giuus instruction shall form
portion G; The discipline OF the Schoo, the tax
payers should, and We think would, be wiling
t4ai such Religion IS the parents preferred be
taught them, believing that any faith winch
teaches obedience to God aud love 10 Man <and
what Church does 20, p must be better than
none. Ii this is objected 10, we see no equal and
Just mode but to imp.n secular knowledge only
at school, and leave the teaching Of Religion en-.
trcly to the Church, the Sunday School aud the
Family. Either Of these modes IS acceptable to
that large portion OF cur People who do not re-
member when the country adopted predom-
nant National Religion and vino cannot con-
sent that such shall be established by some juggle
when they know nothing about it.
The writer in the Commercial boldly says
"Th, conflict then must be met Re either be Pro
tesGEt. Pcp,st, IHd Nation: and ever one that
lingering spark oi regard for The religion ol our ale
should nn IN the earnest entreniy legislators that
they do act tha, may accelerate tendency q Rome
5yniowlnG dlshoEar /" be placed upon that BOON ch
coataps more than constitution the Charter oou
Liberties"
Now VIC doubt that any true religion was ever
advanced by political " conflict or by political
prcdomnance. We are quite certain that con
fict'' to establish any one will produce incalcu-
liable mischcs, moral ard political. We do not
see how any such "confict" can be got up in
face of the following:
Congress shall make law respecting establishment OF
religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof. --Imend
msRts 10 Federal Constitution .7Tt. ~
1t would have somewhat startled those old
Patriots of the Revolutionary age to be told that
we already Aad a National Religion and tha,
not the Christian but the Protestant, in the Com
mcrcials narrow and incorrect sense of that term.
And assuredly, if any dishonor be placed on
that Book, it is BY those who wish to force its
perusal where it is not desired and not by those
who insist that it will vindicate itself, and do
not thank Legislatures and parties for their su-
perserriceablc zeal in its behalf.
1t is Instructive to note hoT a bad cause in.
wolves It's advocate in the necessity OF continual
Misrepresentation. Thus the writer in the Com
mercial says, in condcnning the plan Of allowing
a majority of the parents to dictate the measure
and kind OF religious teaching in school