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

u
these i've questions are e1stsrelv irfelavent
Ii we are not much mistaken. no inteiligen
reader OF the Freeman will fail to compre
hend That no other questions could be nor,
pertinent and relevant to the main question
at issue. Even grant that the Legislator,
had the right to pass compulsory laws. the
expediency and policy of such laws woulc
De extremely doubtful until it was founc
that the powers now in the hands of parents
teachers and school directors were made.
quate. 1t devolved on the editors of The
Adtocdte to defend their position by replying
to these questions seriatim, endeavorino al
lsast to show that It is impossible, or nearly
| SO, to have regular attendance bv any other
means now within the power of parents,
teachers and directors.
We give them credit for some foresight. If
not ingeniousness, in eyadfng reply Just
about the time our article was published the
J0tnst0acH Deni0cfM published in its local
columns an interesting report of an exhibi-
ton in the schools in Conemaugh Borough
under the superintendence of Rev. Valentine
Lobmyer, o. S. B. We have not this report
at hand, but if we remember correctly. it
was stated that, of the large number of
| children attending these schools, there was
but one instance of irregular attendance, and
that but for single day. Here, then; is
COJftLftttS0IU
cation in a nut shell. If the editors of the
AdUocGte cannot now see the relevancy of
our questions. further criticism on that point
would be cruel.
Second-sWe are pleased to see that fRs
admits that the Scriptures enjoin upon pa
rents the duty of educating their children.
After making such an admission, is it not
strange that he should be seized with holy
horror at the bare mention of an enactment
intended to prevent people from setting the
laws of God and the interests of mankind at
defiance, by allowing their children to grow
up in Ignorance 20 Yes, gentlemen, we
certainly admit that the Scriptures enjoin on
parents the duty of educating their children,
and yet we deny that the Scriptures either
enjoin or command parents to have their
children taught even to read or write, much
less do they enjoin that duty on the govern
ment. What kind of education, then, Il
may be asked. does the Scriptures enjoin on
parents2 This will be best explained by
putting the question: For what purpose
was men created and placed in the world 2
Answer To know God, to love Him. and
to serve Him, and by these means to gain
everlasting life. Or, in other words: To
love God and keep his commandments
Here, then. are the principle duties which
devolve upon parents regarding the educa-
iion of their children. Can these duties be
fulfilled without learning them to read or
write2 Certainly they can, and have been.
We know that the greater number of the
Apostles were illiterate men, We know.
notwithstanding they were commissioned
and commanded by our Savior to teach all
nations. they were not commanded to teach
them by learning them to read or write. nor
by reading or writing to them. But, not
withstanding, every intelligent Christian
will freely admit that education, in the
popular sense of the word, is of very great
importance to mankind in assisting them to
perform well the great ends of their crea-
tion, not TO speak of the incalculable benefits
to be derived from a good education In a
temporal point of view. especially when
these great ends are kept in the foreground.
The editors of the advocate seem to insinu-
ate that we did not quote-th them fairly. that
is if we understand them, by emitting sem
tence that would explain and moderate what
preceded it. Hero, thens is the sentence
ssOf course such a law would have to be
framed with much care, and should not be
made too strict at Jfrst." This, to use |
common phrase, is getting out of the mud
and into the mire. If the gentlemen had |
attempted to answer any of our structures
they could have found one on this very |
point We will state It again for their bene-
fit: sBut when you admit the government |
has the power to make the sentence one |
year, or less, by what right do you deny it's |
authority and power to make It ten or more |
years 70 Gentlemen, do you not perceive |
that the very sentence, especially the part |
which you have italicised for our benefit. |
and complain of us for not quoting, admits |
what we said In our first article on this /
point. But such 3 law should not be made |
too strict at first No, that would oe bad |
policy, but when you find the people yield /
and become accustomed to it, then make it |
as strict as you please. Gentlemen, we have |
some curiosity to see hew your Art of Reas-
oning will extricate you from this dilemma.
Perhaps it Is our logic is at fault. We had !
been taught that logic meant the right ace |
of reason, or the art of reasoning and think
ing Justly. Doubtless the editors of the Id /
Uocatc can teach us better.
The editors of the AdUocate intimate that
they do not agree with J. Newlin, Esq, in
al particulars They say ssWe think the
at Jfrst. Now viii you be kind enough, I
gentlemen, to tell MS in what other particu-
lar you do not agree with Mr.. Newlin2
They also seem to complain that we have
done some injustice to Mr.. Newlin by not
giving all their extract from bis able doca-
nent A school director has kindly furnish T
I'd Us with the February number Of the I
Pennsylvania School journal. in which Mr.. /
Newlin's essay Is published. We have read
It carefully and find that in place of doing
him Injustice, we have given your readers I
but faint idea of the absurdities and vaga- +
ries contained in his article. He eulogizes.
IS We had anticipated, the attempt made to