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

) enforce bis system in some towns in Masss
chusetts- Then he proceeds ct great lengtl
with eulogy of the Prussian system. whicl
is known to be the most despotic Ia princi
pie, Il not in practice. on earfh-a system
which IS based on the principle that tn,
people are made for The government. no
the government for the people. But th,
most remarkable part of his Uerv able t5ocst-
nsenk is a sentence which he evidently f1atter,
himself is conclusive of his argument in fsavo
OF compulsory education. Here it is: "I
the State can enact laws to punish theil
children for crime, it certainly ought to have
the power of preventing them from commit
ting it, by throwing around them a kind
but flrm hand, and securing to them that
moral and mental education necessary to
lead them into the path OF virtue and knowl-
edge. This is certainly rich. Then, on
Mr. Newlin's theory. if he is correct, that
the government has this power, what IS its
duty IN the premises Why that il should
appoint policeman to watch every family
night and day, lest any member should be
guilty of any crime. Indeed, one policeman
for each family would be entirely inadequate
Tor that purpose. It would require police
man fer almost every individual in the State;
| tliatis, that one half of the population should
act as police for the other half, and rice
rersd.
Here, now, gentlemen of the Adpocate, is
a sample of the rery 0ble document read by
Jesse Newlin. Esq, before the State Con-
venton of County Superintendents. This,
too, IS portion of your extract from his es-
say
We had put this question to the editors
of the Adtocdte: s.Whence does the Lepis-
/ n <lorsf fo =
nsunaer suggested, with parental authority2''
Hero is their reply: aWhat does sR, mean
by parental authority-allow his child to
grow up IN ignorance, to prey upon society
If this doctrine of the absolute control of
the child by the parent is true, then parents
have perfect right to- inflict upon their
children whatever enorinity, whether men
tai or physical, their passions or their whims
may suggest; and the Court which con-
demned Lindsey for whipping his child to
death rendered d verdict Hagrantly opposed
70 nsthral law and the liberty of the citizen.''
I Gentlemen, we candidly admit that when We
penned that sentences we had scme fears
that either You might not comprehend our
meaning, or make it a pretext for evading
a reply, hence we wrote at the time the fol~
lowing sentence, but came to the conclusion
afterwards to leave 1t out, as it might ap-
pear like an insult to the intelligence of the
readers. Here it is: It is true, no one
doubts the right of the Legislature to inter-
fere when parents are guilty of barbarous or
cruel treatment, for such parents would be
guilty of a violation of the natural and di-
vine law, and should the Legislature fail to
pass any enactment for the protection of
children against the acts of cruel and un-
natural parents, the common law might
prove sufficient for their protection and the
punishment of tho wrong doers. So much
we wrote at the time. Their own admission
that they did not understand what we meant
proves what might be considered egotistical
In us to allude to.
The fifth commandment says ssThou shalt
not kill" yet every one knows that under
certain circumstances we are not only JUS
tined In killing. but it is our duty to kill. |
Apply the logic of the editors of the Adrocate |
to this and it will be found we are estopped
from arguing thar It is right to kill under |
any circumstances. When we say that God |
has entrusted the education of she child to |
the parents. the editors of the 4dUocatc. ac- |
cording to their logic. bold that this is giving
the parents absolute control to do as they
please with their children, and should they /
disobey, whip them TO death, as Rev. Joel /
Lindsey did, This is singular logic. Be
cause parents in some instances prove to be
brutess the natural and divine law which en-
trusts the education of their children to them /
is bad law. and all wrongl But the law
that Jesse Newlin, Esq, and the editors of I
the Adcocate urge is good law, and all |
right, although It might prove to be as bar
barous and cruel iD its results as the treat
ment by Lindsey Of his child. Let us see
the distinction. Rev. Joel Lindsey, in at
tempting to educate his child in his way, VIZ
oiates the natural. the divine and the muni- |
cipal law, by whipping il TO death. The |
Legislature passes a law interfering with the |
natural and divine right of parents as TO how
and when they shall educate their children.
aud for violation of this law by either pa
rent or child, the child may be sent to a
house OF correction. Wherein, now, is the
difference between the barbarity and cruelty
of Lndsley on the one hand and the Legis-
lature on the others2 Lindsey whips his /
child to death, and it is relieved of its suffer
ings. The Legislature tears the child from
its parents, its brothers and sisters. its play
mates. its home, and puts it in house of |
correction. to pine and die. LindsIey vio-
lates the natural, the divine and the munici-
pal law. The Legislators violates the natu- |
raj and divine law, the Constitution of our
State, and the inherent and iadef feasible rights
of parents. Lindsley is guilty of inhuman
and barbarnus treatment Of his child. ID op- /
position to all laws. The Legislature sane
tions almost similar treatment, and in some
respects worse. under the mere semblance of /
law. In word. what Lindsey is condemn
ed for doing by every one they urge upon
the Legislature TO do, but in somewhat |
different manner, and what, doubtless. would |
seem TO Mr. Newlin more refined manner,
in accordance with the ideas Of Christian
civilization in Massachusetts and Prussia.
But let US hear them again: eve do not