The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1871-10-19
The present Free schOoI system

to discharge their duties, hardly any
intelligent freeman will deny. That
this duty is imperative, in the case
of the "helpless and INDECENT" is
equally unquestionable. That it is,
at the same time, the duty of State
to foster private schools, colleges,
and universities, and provide, in all
constitutional ways, far higher edu-
cation, is the decided opinion of all
distinguished educators and states,
men Of the world. That graded
schools, commencing with the ele-
ments of knowledge and rising to an
apex, which recognizes the most pro-
found science of learned profession,
are needed, are indeed indispensable
to the Development and improve
ment Of man in all his relations to
society, is an automatic truth, Illus
trated in the teachings of Horace
Mann, Barnas Sears, Henry Bar
nard, Francis Wayland, and VIM. H.
McGufey. That "free schools" are
an illustration of free institutions,
and, as such, exhibit the freedom of
the will, is a postulate of Republican
Democratic liberty. That a free
school implies freedom to go or send,
or freedom not to go or send. And,
if the object of free school be to
qualify citizens for their duty, it is
undoubtedly a sound principle that
the only penalty for not attending
any school should be refusal, on the
part of a State, to allow an unquali-
fed person to discharge the duty of
citizen. That a free school system
should not interfere with the reli-
gious convictions of a citizen, but
should recognize the same obligations
upon which law rests, which lie at
the foundation of human society. If
these premises be correct, and 1 am
assured that they are undeniably e8-
tablished, then 1 am sternly opposed
to the present "free school system"
of Texas.
First. The Constitution, section
ninth, compels attendance on o free
school, or teacher of approved COM
potency. The makers of the Con-
stitution certainly did not mean to
intimate that faculties of chartered
colleges, of long standing, were not
of approved competency" The
regulations, adopted by the "Public
School Board" requires officers of
colleges to save their patrons from
prosecution, to be examined by Il
County Common School Committee
or Superintendent. That is to say,
the scholars and teachers of the
higher grades must be examined by
persons of lower grade of qualif>
cations, who are themselves assigned
to lower duties. This system Is emil
nently absurd and farcical. 1t is
hoped that rejecting scholars will
not submit to this degradation.
Second. Regulation third, requires
every teacher to take an oath. The
Constitution does not prescribe an
oath. The statutes do not. The
Board had no more right to present
such an oath to a teacher, than they
had to prescribe an oath to a mer-
chant, farmer, lawyer, physician or
minister of religion. Assuredly, if
the Board had a right to prescribe to
a Free School Teacher, they had no
right to prescribe an oath to a pri-
vate teacher or the officer of a char
tered college. Besides, admit the
propriety of an oath to support a
Constitution, no one can defend sue
cessfully, the command to inculcate
sentiments of patriotism and loyalty.
Whose sentiments of patriotism and
loyalty? OF course, those of the
makers of the oath. How then can
a man who knows that those senti4
ments are opposed to them, take
such an oath without perjury? Nay,
more. If the makers Of the oath,
can command me to "inculcato SEN
timents of patriotism and loyalty"
they can command me to teach po-
litical opinions, religious creeds, Or
in6delity, as they may elect. The
requirements to take that oath, is
connected with the fundamental prin,
ciples of civil and religious liberty.
No man who will give the subject
calm consideration will take it. At
least, having twice since the war,
sworn to support the Constitution Of
the United States, [ for one will not
take that oath. 1t is one OF the
worst features Of the most absurd,
monstrous and laundering systems of
Free Schools ever adopted on this
continent. In almost all respects,
it has the high merit of originality.
Michigan is the only other State
know of (although one or two others
are discussing it) which has a COM
pulsory system, about to be inaugu-
rated, but that has not the odious
features of the system imposed on
Texas. A free school indeed! and
a fine of twenty-five dollars imposed
on helpless or INDECENT people who
cannot send their children to it
The imagination can hardly conceive
greater absurdities.
There is much more to be said
against the system, viz;
First. The mode of putting it into
operation, and its hostility to the
State and colleges.
Second. The parties mot the teach.
ers) employed for that purpose.
Third. Its immense cost.
Fourth. The insupportable bur-
den of taxation.
Fifth. The text books prescribed.
a free school system must be in.
augurated, but this one is pre-emi.
nently deserving of public odium.
WV CAPEy CRANE