Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1871-12-15
IT'S 1'K UAt .NE.f.NI.vG.

The Toledo Index of November %, con-
tains powerfully written article on this
important topic, from the pen of the editor,
f. E. Abbot. Viewed in the light in which
he puts it, the objection so naturally raised
to this measure in the minds Of many, en-
trely disappears. We quote:
But the phrase Compulsory education"
is very unfortunate. 1t misleads. 1t puts
the whole subject III a wrong light. The
correction of the error out of which this
phrase sprang will do much to remove the
universal education.
1t was the conception of the ancient Ro-
man law, from which modern law has been
in large measure derived that a fathers
right over his child (pat,'ia potestdS) was
absolute, even including power of life and
death. This idea Is at the bottom of the OBJ
lection to compulsory education though
Of course greatly modified. The PROPOSE
ton that the child has right to be educated
which no parent has right to Infringe or
violate, has probably never occurred to
many PEG lie. Yet this is one of the pro-
positions by which ! ascribe to the State
the duty of enforcing universal education.
Children have rights as truly as their par
ents-none the less so because they neither
know them nor know how to maintain
them. There is need of "childrens rights
movement" quite as much as of "wo.
mems rights movement" and it is the
movement in behalfof universal education.
The old tyranny of parents over their child
rem, which has nothing to do with the en-
forcement Of a just authority used for the
children's good, but only consists in per-
verting this authority to the children's
harm, should be abolished.
The reason why the phrase compulsory
education" ofIends the American ear is be-
cause 1t suggests the idea of compelling
parents to reinquish power they are
| Justly entitled TO. The moment ii is seen
| that parents have no right to withhold edu-
| cation from their children,-no more right
to starve their minds than their bodies, it
becomes plain that the enforcement by the
| State of universal education is not compul
sion of the parent, but protection Of the
child. If any parent violates the child's
right to be educated--his right TO fair
|
which shall not have the jail as its fore-or-
dained terminus.-then the State has as
much right to compel respect for this as
for any other violated right. Such par
ent is q criminal. Mr.. A. j. Mundella, NJ.
p, of Sheffield, England, says that expert
ence has taught him that "where the edu-
cation of children is wholly dependent
upon the parents, the selfshness, indiller-
ence, or Incorporate habits of many will
cause a considerable number to be entirely
neglected or only partially educated
This sentence strikes the nail on the head.
Thousands of parents keep their children
from school for the sake of utilizing their
labor, even of making money out of them
at the expense of all their subsequent
happiness in life. But parent has no
right TO make a drudge out of his child for
his own private advantage. 1t is his bust
ness 10 support the child till the child has
at least received the elements of an educa-
ton. Nature does not devolve on young
children the support of their parents.
repeat it, the parent who so abuses his au'
thority over his child is neither more moi
less than n criminal aud he ought to bs
"compe'ed" to cease his crime. Let the
whole subject be looked at from the side o.
of the child as well as from the side of the
parent, ard nothing could be clearer thar
that the State is bound TO ensure education
to each and every child born into its juris
diction. Life, liberty, and education
these are the primal rights of man. Let III
amend the Declaration Of Independence &C
! cordingly.