Worcester daily spy., 1861-11-06
1QlOftester Daily SPY,


" OhCEolE En- NV l.
Mr.. Editor: l have seen the communication
from Milbury, signed "M.," in the Spy of
Thursday last, and justice compels me to an.
swer it. And yet, l would not answer it were it
not for its mis- statements For Millbury has
granted all that we asked Those scholars of
whom l wrote have been received back at
school, and no further violence is offered them.
There was, therefore, no need OF "M.'s letter,
unless he wishes to condemn the present action
of the school officers. But l answer M s"
communication, because in it he has misrepre.
sented me. He charges me falsely. He puts
words of his own into my mouth, and imputes
to me their utterance. He charges me with
saying that the repetition of the Lords Prayer
and Commandments is odious. lie hHops |
did not say SO. He kno1cS, if he has read my
article, and he has otherwise no right to crit
cize it, that the "odious measures" complained
Of were the shaking u girl and turning her
out of school, because she would not say that
prayer and those commandments after the
Protestant form, while entirely willing TO
recite them as her parents had taught them to
NIL HAilVtilNl hliooltttNAiSHl AAt Sidl StS
me with embarrassing our common Schools
by endeavoring to force into them books
which the law prohibits" l have never done
SO. l have never even advised parent to
procure a Catholic Bible for his child's
use at school, until after that child was
turned out Of school for refusing to read.
the Protestant. All these troubles began on
the other side. They are not Of my original
ing. The boy at Saundersville had been turn
ed out OF schoo; week before | advised the
parent to procure Catholic Bible, and send
him back; and l did so, believing from my
heart that all that was required was, that some
Bible should be read, and l found no fault
with the requirement And now, after the
trouble has originated, because | have taken
the part OF the injured boy, am charged with
embarrassing our common schools Those
common schools are just as dear to me as they
are TO "M." They are mine rs much as they
are his. My rights in them are just as plainly
marked out as are his own. My own educa-
ton was begun in them. | have passed
through them, from the primary to the high.
est grade, and know how 10 appreciate them.
And | know another tfing-that l had mas
tiers there WHO were as conscientious officers
as we have nowadays, but they never compel
led me to recite form OF prayer or command
ment different from my own One of lhem
read a portion Of The Scriptures daily, and
while it was being read, sat as respectfully
attentive as any boy in the school, And now,
when l meet those same masters, as | often
do, can shake their hands with Il feeling OF
pride and gratitude, that my first lessons were
not those OF bigory. Would IN. hold those
officers guilty OF the penalty of the law, be-
cause lhey did not compel TO read the Protest
ant Bible!
The teacher has no legal right to enforce
obedience i'll school in matters that would Ia
vor sectariansm. | am willing to admit the
argument OF "M,' ON the stcariauisu OF tie
Catholic Bible, if he will admit the deduction,
viz: that the Protestant Bible is also sectari
an, because The exponent Of Professionalism
therefore II must be excluded. Both should
be excluded or both admitted il "M should
carry out his reasoning logically But l ask
and have asked no such exclusion OF the one,
no such admission Of the other if not agreea
able. | merely ask that the reading Of tie BIZ
bic be confined 10 the teacher, OF il scholars be
called upon that they be allowed to read their
own Bible and repeat their own prayers. BY
such Il course is any injury done the ProteS-
tant scholar, and By contrary course would
you not oblige the Catholic child to sacrifice
either hls conscience or his schooling The
whole question lies here The legislature
leaves il discretionary with the committee to
have the Bible read by the teacher or by the
scholar Now, ask, is it a discreet use oi
discretionary power 10 force that Bible ON a
child whose parents through conscientious
motives have forbidden him 10 read it, and 10
turn him cut OF school and deprive him OF tile
benefits OF public instruction because he has
dared to obey them? Is that the aim and OBJ
ject of the legislative enactment?
Is not the end and spirit Of the law fulfilled
by having The Bible read by the teacher while
the scholar respectfully listens! Give US that,
and we will not complain. But there is no
longer any trouble OF this kind in Millbury.
1t is in Sauudersvile that glaring act OF in
justice is going on For seven weeks a boy
of eleven years of age has been refused per
mission to recte his lessons in school. He is
obliged to remain there without one word OF
instructon--a silent, striking example to the
whole school, until he shall agree to read the
Protestant Bible. He is willing to read his
own; he is willing 20 shut it, and listen while
the teacher reads her own; but this will not
do-he must read the Protestant Bible or 60
without his schooling Well done, Saunders
vile Deserving pillar of the law ! please
accept this protest!
III bide the time and wait the day,
When might doth not make right.