The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1867-07-04

say that every parent must be made to se,l
his children to the public school, or. indeed
to eng school, CD Do you remember. gen
tiemens what you have said Shall we bs
Obliged tocall the readers attention again se
the heading as well as the purport of yonl
artlcleI Further comment or criticism on
this point might appear uncharitable
We said that compulsory education By
any government is contrary to the divine
and natural laws, and a violation of the rights
OF parents Why, gentlemen, do you not
make an attempt to refute this Is the
reader to understand that your imperfect at
tempt at giving tho meaning of the natural
law is your reply.
But here is the most fragrant misstate-
ment we have yet seen: sssR, maintains
that the parent has right to allow his chill
dren to grow up ignorance If he desires. -
Now we challenge you, gentlemen, to show
your readers, by any word which we have
uttered, that we asserted anything of the
kind, even by implication. On the contra
~, we asserted that God entrusted the edu-
cation OF the child to the parents, and not
70 the government, holding the parents res
ponsible for q violation or omission Of their
duty. Let Us see if we have any authority
IN support of this assertion. We will at
present quote but two out of the many which
We could furnish Heinnicius. a distin-
gulshed Jurist on natural law, says: s.Pa-
rents have the right, by the law of nature.
20 direct the actions of their children. as be-
ing power necessary to their proper edu
cation. It is the will of God, therefore. that
parents shonld have and exercise that DOW
er."-Heinnicius' Glenn. Jur. Nat. ct Cent?
EN-, b. II. ch. 8, sec. So, 55. Our other au-
thority is Judge Ellis Lewis, who was a
Judge OF the supreme Court of Pennsylva-
MA In the case of the Commonwealth VS..
Armstrong he says at is the right and the
duty OF the father not only to maintain his
infant children, but to instruct their minds
in moral and religious principles. and to req
uIate their consciences by a course of educa-
tion and discipline. All interference with
the parental power and duty, except by the
Courts of justice, when that power is abused.
is injurious to domestic subordination, and
TO the public peace. morals and security.v
1he gentlemen of the Adpoc0te endeavor
to show that our method of reasoning is had
because we hold that if the government has
the right to compel attendance at school. IL
can compel the people to attend a particular
church. They say s.Now we beg to re-
mind him that the Constitution of the State
forbids interference IN religious matters, ,,
Yes, and we beg to remind them that the
Constitution hg our State also forbids ant
uoPfifalioH "a the personal liberty OF tHe cit
izen unless for crime, an attempt to commit
crime, or in case Of absolute necessity. when
the public good demands it. And we also
beg % remind them that the right of parents
las we have shosn1 to educate their chill
drens is an Inherent and i,adefcdsibEe RIGHT
which existed before any government. and !
which no government has the riqht to take
from them, no matter whether that right be. |
secured IN its Constitution or not. They |
also remind us that the Constitution does
not deprive the Legislature of the power to |
legislate in regard to education, but, on the |
contrary; says the Legislature shall provide |
for the establishment of schools. Granted. |
But where is the power given in the Consti- |
tuition to compel parents to send their chill |
dren to school, or to have them educated2 2
We would respectfully suggest to the edi- |
tors of the AdOocGse to turn their attention |
to our structures, in our former article. and |
endeavor to refute them. We expect them |
to do this not by misstatements, but by full |
and fair quotations from us, so the readermay
understand the points at issue. If they do |
this we shall not complain as to how many
papers they may use in replying. r.