The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1867-06-13
From the Teachers Advocate.
ColzapuIsory Attendance.

we hoJce communication 81 gneus h. anu
entitled tsThe Teachers Advocate, = IN when
the writer demurs to our article on .lrregu-
lar Attendance" /" published 10 the May num-
der of our paper. What induced the W tier
to put our head on his article we are at
loss to know, unless. indeed, there was no
other head of any value within bis reach f
when he wrote.
9, starts out by asking us i've or SIX
questions, which, as they are entirely irrele-
want, we pass over without further remark /
He then changes his base. and proceeds to I
to combat the principle OF compulsory at
tendance. Ia fact, bis whole article, when /
stripped of its verbiage and sophistry. SIM |
ply amounts to the assertion that such an |
act would be contrary to the "narnral and
divine law.1 He says: We think there
is nothing more clear in the Sacred Scrip
lures tLan that God entrusted the care,
education. and protection of the child to Its
parents" We are pleased to know that
..R - admits that the Scriptures enjoln upon
parents the duty of educating their children.
After making such an admission, is it not
strange that be 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
He represents MS as favoring law that
would s'tear from the bosom of the father
and the mother, and from the arms OF the
brother and the sister, the innocent, help
less child and place it in a house OF correc-
tion.o We win repeat for his benefit what
we did say, or enough of it to Indicate the
| tone of our article: " We see no remedy by
which this evil can be arrested but a law
| compelling attendance at school. Of course
such law would have to be framed with
much care, and should not be made too strict
at first" In concluding that article we
appended a portion of a report BY Jesse
| Rewlin, Esq, not because we agreed with
him in all particulars, but for the purpose
| of showing that we were not alone IN sup
| port of the general features of such meas
ure.. IF Mr.. ssR'' had not been so much
pressed for room, and could have given his
readers the whole of the quotation from Mr.
Newlin's report, false impression would
not have been produced. We did say, and
we say again, that Mr.. Newlin's report was
an able document, yet for all that we do
not agree with him in every particular.
We think the punishment he proposes is too
severe His views upon the subject. as
quoted by fsR - are much modified by what
follows, which, of course, s'R'' did not quote
/ He strives to convey the idea that the adj
vocates of this measure ara in favor of COM
peliing all parents to send their children to
i the public schools. Now. we advocate nc
such thing, but simply claim that all should
be educated. They may be educated IL
4 private or parochial schools, or by private
| Instructors at home We dc not wish tt
deprive any one of his right of deciding by
Fl whom or in what Institution his chiicreT
shall be educated. We claim that his duty
to God and to society demands that the,
be educated; and we claim further, that thos'
, who, regardless of the injunctiens of Scrip
ture, the interests of society, and the Voica
of nature in their own breasts, which shoult
prompt them to seek the welfare OF thel
offspring, neglect the education of their chill
: dren. should be compelled by law to do wha
they otherwise refuse to do The Law whicl
+. we advocate is intended to apply, not t
. those who discharge their obligations TO thei
children la the way of education, but
: those who. disregarding the obligations {
9 the parental relation, allow them to gro
9 up in ignorance.
It s.We would ask the editors of the Apv.
e CATE y says this writer, 'swhence the Legi
g lature derives its power to interfere, in Il
!. manner suggested, with parental AUTHORITY
= What does "R'' mean by tsparental author
ty 2,' Does be mean to assert, as the who
a tone of his article seems to indicate. th
q the parent has absolute control of the child
n that he may, by virtue of parental author
= ty,'' allow his child to grow up in ignoranc
), to prey upon society If this doctrine
+ the absolute control of the child bys4he D
p rent is true, then parents have a perfe
% right to infict upon their children whatev
!" enormities, either mental or physical. ths
IT passions or their whirns may suggest al
the court which condemned Lindsley
I, whipping his child to death. rendered
u' verdict ssfiagrantly opposed to natural Ia
e and the liberty of the citizen.1 We coute1
y that the parent has no more right to proIu
We the Intellectual and moral Iuin of the CHI
o. by neglecting his education. than he has
dis hasten his physical ruin by infiictions of t
he lash.
= We are told that such an ENACTMENT
- "a opposed to divine law. The divine law i
GO poses the duty of education The ena
ne ment which we favor is designed to prevt
parents from neglecting duty which
x every parent must be made to send his cl
Cor dren to the public school, or indeed to q
,se school. We simply insist that he shall
Z be allowed to neglect their education. 81
lie then is such a Law contrary to divine la
lal It is opposed to natural law, says 81
OF Let US see. Natural law is rule Of hun
es, antion established by the Creator, and aris
an out of the relations of human beings to e.
". other in a state of nature. It exists wh
int both divine and municipal laws are
known. and does not take its rise from 9
=. positive precept. Murder, for instance,
@' crime under the natural law, for if .mur
us were allowed to go unpunished In any soci
M or state, or if it were regarded as ri
rem therein, the result might be the entire
i'm strnction of such society or state Self I
r.. ff<<s