The Portland daily press., 1871-11-20

COmpWEsOfy Il GucAtIOns
THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO ENFORCE

There is no better omen for Maine than
the interest evnced in the discussion of this
subject. Other reforms are important, but
this takes precedence of all. No effort should
be spared to make our people temperate, hon
est, prosperous and happy, but they must be
intelligent before they can be secure in either
OF these blessings. Our common schools are
not In SO good condition as they ought to
be, and only halt of the pupils attend such
schools as we have! Compulsory education
seems to be the only practical means OF res
toring our boosted school system to its former
efficiency. An able writer in the Maine Far
n,er discusses the question of the right OF the
State to enforce attendance on the schools IN
forcible manner. We quote:
In the first place We would remark that
this RIGHT rests on the same grounds as the
right to Law taxes fol the purpose OF providing
the means of education. If the State may
take the money Of Brown to maintain schools
Tor the instI uction OF Jones's children, it may
also insist that Jones's children shall come to
receive the instruction thus provided. To
| suppose the former right to exist without the
latter, would be contrary to common sense.
There are Lot wanting, to he sure, philosO
pliers who deny the existence of either, but as
we have practically recognized 1t as the duty
of the State to maintain free schools for pub
lie instruction we shall be quite inconsistent
il we deny the supplementary right of COM
polling the attendance OF those for whom the
instruction is designed, whenever the necessi-
ty of compulsion exists.
Again, The State has always exercised the
luhf n hn oh,
the parent. The parent may not starve or
| main or otherwise mallreat his offspring 1t
is reasonable TO grant him the right to deprive
them OF the meaps OF culture, such as will fit
| them tor the duties of life? Is the intellect
)f SO little importance in comparison with the
| body OF the child that the strong arm OF the
law may interfere 20 prevent the parent from
lnluring the latter, while it must leave him
| free to starve and stint the former at his
will? Shall we not rather say that it is the
| most imperative duty of the State toward the
child to see that it is not defrsuded by its sci.
fish or ignorant parents OF its fair share of in
| teectaal culture. The parent is the natural
| guardian of The child, and will, it is presumed
| prove faithful guardian; but in how many
| instances, known TO each one OF our readers
| does the presumption fail? How often does
| he sacrifice all the interests lntruste1 to his
| charge to his own selfish purposes?
Few pretend to deny the right of the gov
eminent to require military service on juries
and in aiding the officers Of the law. Can it
be a less essential power of government to in
sist On such training OF youth as to fit them
for an intelligent performance of all their du-
ties toward the State?
1t IS generally conceded by intelligent per.
sons that popular ignorance, if not the source
from whence spring the gravest dangers that
threaten the safety and well being of society
is at least the congenial soil in which they
take ready root, and make rank growth. Sure
| ly, as means of precautioDi against these
| dangers the State way insist on the disper
| sion of Ignorance